FBI Sniper CAN Be Charged

[12-34hom]

Sure there's enough blame to go around, But what makes anyone think that the on site commanders will ever be charged with anything let alone convicted.

In fact, those who ran this little operation have been promoted within the F.B.I. if i remember correctly.

Using the lame excuse that "i was just following orders" don't wash. Many war criminals spout this as an excuse for crimes against civil populations. It's not right then or now with this incident.

This is why there are so many [on this site] and the general public have no trust in Law enforcement as a whole. The precieve that those who enforce the laws see themselfs as excempt and are not held accountable for actions taken that, if done by "regular" citizens would be arrested and charged and tried without hesitation.

There are many portions of what happened we will probably never know. But on the face of it, i would say this subject needs to be charged and have a jury of his peers judge him on the merits.

Will this ever happen, federal officals have a big stake in preventing this type of litigation. Setting this type of action, opens a whole other can of worms for future actions taken under similiar circumstances. The F.B.I. track record as of late has been very poor. When asked "who will investigate and solve domestic crimes" it would seem that state and county officals could do as well as the F.B.I. as of late. There track record in the last 15 years is a joke.

12-34hom.

 

[Frodo the Hobbit]

Another reason to ensure justice is carried out on the shooter, is that it will make future snipers aware that they are accountable for their actions even if they are following orders. I can hear it now. Officer: "Shoot anyone armed who shows his person." Sniper: "I can't just shoot them, I'm the one who will go to jail, not you. And I have the court case to prove it."

If that is all we can get out of the case, at least it would be something.

Frodo

 

[DeakonG]

OK...time to throw in my admittedly weak .02...

First off George...I agree with you about the FBI snickering right now about how everyone is focusing on the shooter...it makes the dark suits disappear into the background and allows the agency to point a finger without answering to anything...it's a lot like a slight of hand magician...use distraction to disguise what's really going on...

I have to say this however...if you think a trial is going to solve anything...think again...I want someone to define what his peers would be...I point back, as someone else has, to the King case in LA...as someone who was there, the whole trial was a joke...I'm not saying that King wasn't a goblin that did nothing wrong...he was a dirtbag, pure and simple...however what the cops did was also WRONG...it WAS police brutality and there was ABSOLUTELY NO justification for it...it seems that everyone has failed to notice that LAPD jumped in for the final two or so miles of that chase...if anyone had a reason to be froggy it should have been the CHPers that were behind him during the ENTIRE chase...they were charged and then put on trial in about the perfect place for a cop to be up on charges...a community of ex, retired, and current law enforcement officers...is a community like that REALLY their peers???...tough question...I have a pretty good idea that if they were tried in the community they policed then a far different result would have occured...this brings me back to the Ruby Ridge mess...where is he going to be on trial at???...that will, without a doubt, be the deciding factor as to what the verdict will be...my guess...it will be ARRANGED that the trial will happen in a jurisdiction that doesn't really like federal agencies...the defense will try to move the trial and they will fail...anybody wanna bet against me???...bottom line, the trial isn't going to really accomplish a whole lot except to give the dark suits the distraction they need to disappear...

(Rant mode off)

G

 

[TAZ]

I will have to agree with George on all counts except the honorable part. Honorable men dont cower behind immunity clauses and willingly participate in another atrocity. At Ruby Ridge and quite possibly Waco, he made piss poor decisions and then hid behind legaities to cover his a$$. He chose to engage target because he claimed that he felt the FBI helicopter and its crew were in danger of being fired upon. It later turned out that said helicopter was not in any danger. I'll grant him the first shot simply because of the benefit of the doubt. After missing his first shot, he chose to engage said target again while the target was retreating and now CLEARLY posing NO threat to anyone. That is called trying to KILL someone in my book and in most legal libraries. He then claims to have used the cabin door as a hold off in an attempt to hit a moving target. So he knew that his backstop was going to be the Weaver family cabin occupied by people NOT listed on any warrants and not threatening anyone. Knowing all this he pulled the trigger again and blew Vikki Weaver's head off. Those are not the actions of an honorable man by ANY stretch of the imagination. Maybe he was given poor intelligence, poor rules of engagement or what not, but it was still his choice to pull the trigger. That does not mean that the people running the show should walk. They should be tried along side Horiuchi and made to pay for their stupidity and desire for promotion.

 

[LawDog211]

Ahh

Again i say if you were not there and your "evidence' comes from the newspapers/media, Quit assumming you know something. If "they" had done this or done that "they" wouldnt have killed anyone WHAT IF: they habdnt of commited a crime, what if they had showed up for court, what if they didnt have possesion of illegal weapans, what if they had done what they were supposed to, Would anyone be dead now?

About the track recored of the fbi being bad for lat 15 years, i think there are a max of 5 bad incidents which are bad no matter what, but there are like over 200,000 thousand good incidents that no one wants to look at.....why is that? 200,000 to 5 thats a damn good track record if you ask me.

Put the person beleived to be in the wrong on trial, but make it a fair trial and see what the jury says, if found guilty punish them if found inocent then leave them alone.

 

[AmericaFirst]

We love you BIG BROTHER!

[M]ass murder is the most memorable achievement of governments in the twentieth century. The Black Book of Communism, a 1997 French scholarly compendium, detailed how between 85 million and 100 million people came to die at the hands of communist regimes.... Professor R.J. Rummel, in his book Death by Government, declared: "Almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners." Gerald Scully, writing for the National Center for Policy Analysis, concluded that "perhaps as many as 360 million have been murdered by their own governments in this century." Of course, every such slaughter is the "exception that proves the rule" of government benevolence.
—James Bovard, Freedom In Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen

 

[Jeff, CA]

I love it when cops say, "you weren't there; you don't know what happened". These are inevitably the same people who will say to a suspect, "We 'know' you did it. Why don't you make it easy on yourself?" Yes, I've had a version of that said to me. When the truth came out, the disgusting cowards wouldn't even attempt to explain how what they "knew" didn't square with the facts. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[George Hill]

Very good point Jeff.

 

[USP45]

Lawdog211,

Personally, i'm taking my evidence from the civil cases that were won by the Weaver family and friends. And nobody is disputing the cause of action, a shotgun with an allegedly short barrel.

Also, i would think that the "5 big incidents" you refer to are the ones we *know* about. Not the only ones; assuradly not the only ones.

Well said Jeff.

 

[Southla1]

George, sure the ones that issue the illegal order are at fault, but so are the ones that follow them! Possible moreso. We all know that the whole mess stunk to high heaven! I had a big shot supervisor in the office one day tell me to flow an oil well overboard into the Gulf of Mexico! (Nice oil slick huh?) I asked him if he was willing to send me those instructions on a written and signed form, stating that, and the fact that i would be fired if i did not do it. Never heard another word about it so therefore no illegal act took place. If all the agents had acted this way some of this mess would never have happened!

 

[Southla1]

If this goes to trial the jury was "not there" either. Does this mean that maybe we let the FBI decide if Lon Horiuchi is innocent or guilty? I do know what the people in the surrounding area think of Horiuchi, and the FBI. Thats why a grand jury, and the DA already tried to try him. They WERE there, or close enough anyway.

 

[WYO]

I was going to sit this one out, but what the heck. There sure is a lot of confusion going around in this thread and various others.

The crux of the inquiry and the burden of proof is substantially different in civil matters versus criminal matters. While facts may overlap, civil liability by preponderance of the evidence does not necessarily prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil culpability has a substantially lower standard.

Each case is judged on its own merits, based on the state of the law at the time, and what happened to somebody's brother's girlfriend's cousin, or what a writer thinks would happen to a hypothetical other person, is irrelevant to the inquiry.

Thankfully, public opinion polls have no bearing on guilt or innocence in a criminal matter.

Except in extremely limited circumstances, not generally applicable in use of force cases, there is no strict liability for things that do not turn out the way we wished they had. The death of someone does not automatically mean that there is civil or criminal liability on someone's part. In police use of force cases, it still generally comes down to whether the shooter was reasonable under the circumstances considering the applicable legal standard for use of deadly force. The courts do not require perfection, just action within the range of reasonableness that would be expected of a reasonable person with the knowledge, training and experience of the officer, when faced with the same circumstances. There is a lot of case law on this.

It is incredibly naive to think that, as a general rule, police officers, whether federal, state or local, consciously or recklessly decide to kill people secure in the belief that they ultimately will fade the heat. Pulling the trigger is the beginning of years of hell, from the officer's own conscience, the media, self-proclaimed experts, family members of the deceased, plaintiffs' lawyers, prosecutors, "community activists," grand jurors, judges, trial jurors and the like, all with differing and often self serving agendas. It affects the officer, the officer's family who will be ridiculed, the officer's relationships with family and friends, the officer's career, the ability to find another job, the officer's health (physical, mental and emotional) the ability to borrow money, etc. Even officers who ultimately prevail cannot be considered "winners" by a long shot.

We don't convict people in America independent of their own guilt or innocence just to send a message to future actors. I submit that the controversy in this matter and others is enough to do that already, and may already result in hesitation that results in innocents being harmed.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's what America is about. It's just better if people understand the ground rules going in and put some genuine thought into them. YMMV, but it appears to me that talk of lynchings and electrocutions, even in jest, does nothing to further intelligent discussion on this serious subject, and it conveys the image that some of us are prejudiced in the traditional dictionary sense of pre-judging something without adequate background.

P.S. There is more discussion of what the Ninth Circuit case means in the parallel thread in legal and political.

 

[Mark D]

One small comment. My memory recalls that Lon was not 200+ yards away when he took the shot. I recall a number closer to 75 yards. In that terrain, I don't believe a 200+ yard hide would allow a shooter to even see the Weavers cabin.

My memory also hints that at ranges under 100 yards, the lead you need to take on a running adult is only a few inches, not half a stride or more.

At best Lon is a crappy shot. At worst, he should fry.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

George, I would agree with you that 'Hooch' shouldn't be the only one examined here.

However, didn't the FBI and the federal government choose this course in many ways? What has upset so many people about this case, Waco and other, less publicized examples, is the lack of accountability.

When you study the Weaver case, it is stunning ... absolutely stunning ... the amount of resources devoted by the feds to their pursuit of Weaver. As I recall, they even went so far as to have solar-powered video cameras surveiling his property.

I met a juror once that was on the case. He had a very, very low opinion of the fed's behavior in this operation.

All of us know that if we behaved anything like the fed's, we'd be behind bars for such action. [I can't believe any one could believe it is justified to shoot a man in the back, even if he is suspected of shooting an LEO ... I don't recall that crime making it 'open season' on such a criminal.] And, for a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge to effectively say the fed's potentially criminal behavior should be forgiven because they take risks? How insulting ... to every American, to our intelligence, and to the very liberties that Judge cravenly cited in his minority opinion.


Under the Clinton administration, we saw sometimes a frightening lack of accountability by the fed's. And, frankly, such a lack of accountability is surely one of the hallmarks of a police state. Hopefully we've reversed course on that front ... we shall see.

Regards from AZ

 

[George Hill]

"When you study the Weaver case, it is stunning ... absolutely stunning ... the amount of resources devoted by the feds to their pursuit of Weaver. As I recall, they even went so far as to have solar-powered video cameras surveiling his property."

All for a sawed off shotgun...
Makes me wanna puke.

 

[Quartus]

This case did not get national media attention because of "mistakes". If there had been only "mistakes" we probably wouldn't be talking about it. This case happened because fundamental principles of liberty and justice were trampled on by the FBI. Maybe the actual shooting of Vickie Weaver was just a mistake, but it was a mistake that occurrred because a Federal Agent thought he had the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

That's wrong. And that's not the conduct of an honorable man.

And we are talking about it, and some of us are quite upset about it, because it is part of a very dangerous trend toward the militarization of law enforcement in this country - a trend that leads to a police state.

How many LEOs do you know who do NOT refer to the general population as "civilians", as though the LEOs are NOT civilians? I'll wager there is more than one LEO on this board who wonders what kind of militia nut I am to make such a ridiculous suggestion that cops are civilians.

As long as that mindset is prevalent, we are in trouble.

 

[LoneStranger]

Be as it may.
Yes, Mr. Horiuchi should be forced to stand trial for his actions at Ruby Ridge. For at a trial it would be hoped that the entire situation would be examined and his share of the culpability would be assessed.
Moreover, the bad actions of those over him who gave him bad directions would be brought out, for that is his defense. If they would put his superiors on the stand to testify about their instructions to him, they would become subject to perjury charges if they fail to answer correctly.
In some trials it is not so much about winning as it should be about achieving a goal. In this case the goal should be to send a message to LEO and Prosecutors that they can be held accountable.

 

[LawDog211]

Ahh

Jeff, CA
USP45
Do you 2 read a entire post or just the 1st 2 lines?

"Put the person beleived to be in the wrong on trial, but make it a fair trial and see what the jury says, if found guilty punish them if found inocent then leave them alone."

And the person who said that jury wasnt at the shooting how will they know? evidence/testimony something you dont have to make your opinion, other then what you are reading in the "Unbiased" newspapers/media.

According to our laws everyone is inocent untill proven guilty that includes LEO's. And if you think the majority of LEO's beleive they are untouchable then for all means please go somewhere and start your perfect country. Or quit your job and become a perfect LEO we sure need those, and Ill quit my job and do whatever you do becuase whatever it is i am sure that everyone your fields is without human flaws. The diff between a LEO involved in a accidentl shooting or shooting by reflex is intent, The Badguy intended to commit a crime the LEO didnt, he just FKD up, and should find another line of work etc. but to say he is a criminal bah

 

[AmericaFirst]

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there
must never be a time when we fail to protest.

- Elie Wiesel (author of Night, holocaust survivor)

 

[Zander]

"...but we dont know all the "WHYs"."

Horsemanure! Of course we know the 'why'!

Horiuchi was given the "green light" to murder Vicki Weaver because his "superiors" sought and secured an illegal change in the engagement rules...a change that was [is] specifically determined to be illegal on both the federal and state level.

If the authorities on the state level have any balls at all, he'll be tried forthwith...and sentenced to the maximum allowable for his "designated" crime.

Too bad the murdering bastard won't be hanged!