RIP, Randy Weaver

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The man who kicked off the modern era of anti-government hatred has passed away.

Randy Weaver, participant in Ruby Ridge standoff, dies at 74

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Randy Weaver, patriarch of a family that was involved in an 11-day Idaho standoff with federal agents 30 years ago that left three people dead and helped spark the growth of anti-government extremists, has died at the age of 74.

apnews.com

Rudy Ridge was a watershed moment in American history. The previous bout of anti-government agitation, during the 60s and 70s, was largely driven by the left, the young, peaceniks, minorities, etc. Then, we got sick of that, and moved into the materialistic 80s. But in 1992, anti-government sentiment flared again, and this movement was quite different from the counterculture of earlier decades. This time, the hatred was coming from disaffected whites and conservatives. Not people who felt the nation was never for them, but rather people who felt the nation has been taken from them. A line runs from Ruby Ridge through Waco and Oklahoma City, up to the Bundy standoffs and Charlottesville and other recent events.

And yet, that's not to dismiss Weaver as some radical zealot undeserving of sympathy. The feds killed his wife and son. Leadership at the FBI at the time the siege was happening was wary about their own legal footing. After he and his friend were acquitted of almost everything, and he settled a wrongful death suit against the government, an anonymous FBI informant told WaPo that the government's case was so bad, Weaver probably would have won his case if it had gone to trial.

Those worried about current divisions in America becoming inflamed would do well to look at the 90s again. It all started with Ruby Ridge, and it quickly built to a catastrophic climax in Oklahoma City. Like an earthquake relieving some tension in the fault, the bombing may have cooled things for a while, but it didn't end the conflict.

 

[Morrison]

The man who kicked off the modern era of anti-government hatred has passed away.

Randy Weaver, participant in Ruby Ridge standoff, dies at 74

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Randy Weaver, patriarch of a family that was involved in an 11-day Idaho standoff with federal agents 30 years ago that left three people dead and helped spark the growth of anti-government extremists, has died at the age of 74.

apnews.com

Rudy Ridge was a watershed moment in American history. The previous bout of anti-government agitation, during the 60s and 70s, was largely driven by the left, the young, peaceniks, minorities, etc. Then, we got sick of that, and moved into the materialistic 80s. But in 1992, anti-government sentiment flared again, and this movement was quite different from the counterculture of earlier decades. This time, the hatred was coming from disaffected whites and conservatives. Not people who felt the nation was never for them, but rather people who felt the nation has been taken from them. A line runs from Ruby Ridge through Waco and Oklahoma City, up to the Bundy standoffs and Charlottesville and other recent events.

And yet, that's not to dismiss Weaver as some radical zealot undeserving of sympathy. The feds killed his wife and son. Leadership at the FBI at the time the siege was happening was wary about their own legal footing. After he and his friend were acquitted of almost everything, and he settled a wrongful death suit against the government, an anonymous FBI informant told WaPo that the government's case was so bad, Weaver probably would have won his case if it had gone to trial.

Those worried about current divisions in America becoming inflamed would do well to look at the 90s again. It all started with Ruby Ridge, and it quickly built to a catastrophic climax in Oklahoma City. Like an earthquake relieving some tension in the fault, the bombing may have cooled things for a while, but it didn't end the conflict.

Damn, that’s a well written post.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The man who kicked off the modern era of anti-government hatred has passed away.

Randy Weaver, participant in Ruby Ridge standoff, dies at 74

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Randy Weaver, patriarch of a family that was involved in an 11-day Idaho standoff with federal agents 30 years ago that left three people dead and helped spark the growth of anti-government extremists, has died at the age of 74.

apnews.com

Rudy Ridge was a watershed moment in American history. The previous bout of anti-government agitation, during the 60s and 70s, was largely driven by the left, the young, peaceniks, minorities, etc. Then, we got sick of that, and moved into the materialistic 80s. But in 1992, anti-government sentiment flared again, and this movement was quite different from the counterculture of earlier decades. This time, the hatred was coming from disaffected whites and conservatives. Not people who felt the nation was never for them, but rather people who felt the nation has been taken from them. A line runs from Ruby Ridge through Waco and Oklahoma City, up to the Bundy standoffs and Charlottesville and other recent events.

And yet, that's not to dismiss Weaver as some radical zealot undeserving of sympathy. The feds killed his wife and son. Leadership at the FBI at the time the siege was happening was wary about their own legal footing. After he and his friend were acquitted of almost everything, and he settled a wrongful death suit against the government, an anonymous FBI informant told WaPo that the government's case was so bad, Weaver probably would have won his case if it had gone to trial.

Those worried about current divisions in America becoming inflamed would do well to look at the 90s again. It all started with Ruby Ridge, and it quickly built to a catastrophic climax in Oklahoma City. Like an earthquake relieving some tension in the fault, the bombing may have cooled things for a while, but it didn't end the conflict.

I know McVeigh pulled off OKCity because of Waco (fun fact/namedropping: my crim law prof was tapped to defend his partner, Terry Nichols, and he saved him from the death penalty. I had a few friends who worked on that case with the prof.; I always found that kind of ambition disturbing.)

But I don't think the whackos in Waco (most of whom didn't deserve what happened to them) had any connection AT ALL to the events at Ruby Ridge. It wouldn't surprise me if they discovered no one at that compound even knew about Ruby Ridge. Do you have a link or article with some evidence that ties them together? Are you just saying that they both involved white people so must be driven by the same psychology?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I know McVeigh pulled off OKCity because of Waco (fun fact/namedropping: my crim law prof was tapped to defend his partner, Terry Nichols, and he saved him from the death penalty. I had a few friends who worked on that case with the prof.; I always found that kind of ambition disturbing.)

But I don't think the whackos in Waco (most of whom didn't deserve what happened to them) had any connection AT ALL to the events at Ruby Ridge. It wouldn't surprise me if they discovered no one at that compound even knew about Ruby Ridge. Do you have a link or article with some evidence that ties them together? Are you just saying that they both involved white people so must be driven by the same psychology?

Oh, gosh no. I'm not saying they were connected in terms of the participants knowing each other (well, other than the FBI agents, of course). I'm saying it was all part of the same anti-government phenomenon that the feds cracked down on - in a really bad, messy way - that ultimatley led to OKC.

 

[iuwclurker]

The man who kicked off the modern era of anti-government hatred has passed away.

Randy Weaver, participant in Ruby Ridge standoff, dies at 74

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Randy Weaver, patriarch of a family that was involved in an 11-day Idaho standoff with federal agents 30 years ago that left three people dead and helped spark the growth of anti-government extremists, has died at the age of 74.

apnews.com

Rudy Ridge was a watershed moment in American history. The previous bout of anti-government agitation, during the 60s and 70s, was largely driven by the left, the young, peaceniks, minorities, etc. Then, we got sick of that, and moved into the materialistic 80s. But in 1992, anti-government sentiment flared again, and this movement was quite different from the counterculture of earlier decades. This time, the hatred was coming from disaffected whites and conservatives. Not people who felt the nation was never for them, but rather people who felt the nation has been taken from them. A line runs from Ruby Ridge through Waco and Oklahoma City, up to the Bundy standoffs and Charlottesville and other recent events.

And yet, that's not to dismiss Weaver as some radical zealot undeserving of sympathy. The feds killed his wife and son. Leadership at the FBI at the time the siege was happening was wary about their own legal footing. After he and his friend were acquitted of almost everything, and he settled a wrongful death suit against the government, an anonymous FBI informant told WaPo that the government's case was so bad, Weaver probably would have won his case if it had gone to trial.

Those worried about current divisions in America becoming inflamed would do well to look at the 90s again. It all started with Ruby Ridge, and it quickly built to a catastrophic climax in Oklahoma City. Like an earthquake relieving some tension in the fault, the bombing may have cooled things for a while, but it didn't end the conflict.

Lawlessness isn’t the answer. If you live in the states, you agree to abide by its laws. If you want to change the laws, there are structures for doing so. We live in a civilized society. Bottom line is, Randy Weaver lost family members because he refused to turn himself in. Guilty or innocent, you abide by the rules.

 

[Lucy01]

Lawlessness isn’t the answer. If you live in the states, you agree to abide by its laws. If you want to change the laws, there are structures for doing so. We live in a civilized society. Bottom line is, Randy Weaver lost family members because he refused to turn himself in. Guilty or innocent, you abide by the rules.

But yet you support Antifa🙄

 

[UncleMark]

Damn, that’s a well written post.

It's not ifw level, but yeah, that was pretty solid.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I recommend the PBS documentary on Ruby Ridge.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The man who kicked off the modern era of anti-government hatred has passed away.

You give Weaver too much credit.

Government at all levels and in all branches, plus many of those who sit in various government chairs, plus those who believe their mission is to point out to the rest of us that government is non-responsive and corrupt do a great job furthering the modern era of government hatred.

As far as the FBI is concerned, despite its reputation for investigative expertise and thoroughness, and dozens of complimentary TV shows and movies, there never was a time in our history where the FBI was not corrupted by various and different influences and didn’t abuse its authority. Weaver was the beginning of public understanding of that.

 

[IUCrazy2]

The man who kicked off the modern era of anti-government hatred has passed away.

Given the rest of the context of your post, the opening statement is out of place to me. Weaver did not kick it off. The government did with a bad case where they used extreme, unnecessary force which ended in the death of his wife and child, to arrest him for charges he was completely acquitted for and they later admitted were so weak they would have lost in court despite what went down.

Weaver is to blame like Franz Ferdinand is to blame for WW1.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I know McVeigh pulled off OKCity because of Waco (fun fact/namedropping: my crim law prof was tapped to defend his partner, Terry Nichols, and he saved him from the death penalty. I had a few friends who worked on that case with the prof.; I always found that kind of ambition disturbing.)

But I don't think the whackos in Waco (most of whom didn't deserve what happened to them) had any connection AT ALL to the events at Ruby Ridge. It wouldn't surprise me if they discovered no one at that compound even knew about Ruby Ridge. Do you have a link or article with some evidence that ties them together? Are you just saying that they both involved white people so must be driven by the same psychology?

I had a federal trial in Denver during the time the Ok city bombing trial was underway. The building security was astonishingly thorough. One whole floor of the courthouse was blocked off. Armed guards were everywhere in the building. The TV set-ups in the adjacent plaza was like a three ring circus. I asked one crew if they wanted to interview me, they were so hungry for material they didn’t realize I was joking.

I don’t think could have been a better judge for that trial than Judge Matsch. I posted about him when he died.

 

[iuwclurker]

Weaver did not kick it off. The government did

Nowadays police routinely use lethal force if someone refuses to cooperate or refuses to be arrested. The rules of the game in our society are, if a police officer says stop, you stop. If a police officer says raise your hands, you raise your hands. A lot of our fellow citizens refuse to abide by that simple rule. Being a police officer is a dangerous occupation. When someone refuses to play by the rules, a police officer spots this immediately and shifts into danger zone mode. The consequence is often lethal.

Play by the rules or suffer the consequences.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Nowadays police routinely use lethal force if someone refuses to cooperate or refuses to be arrested.

No they don’t.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

I know McVeigh pulled off OKCity because of Waco (fun fact/namedropping: my crim law prof was tapped to defend his partner, Terry Nichols, and he saved him from the death penalty. I had a few friends who worked on that case with the prof.; I always found that kind of ambition disturbing.)

But I don't think the whackos in Waco (most of whom didn't deserve what happened to them) had any connection AT ALL to the events at Ruby Ridge. It wouldn't surprise me if they discovered no one at that compound even knew about Ruby Ridge. Do you have a link or article with some evidence that ties them together? Are you just saying that they both involved white people so must be driven by the same psychology?

We could ask the Davidians if they knew about Randy Weaver......

Oh wait....they're all dead...

 

[iuwclurker]

No they don’t.

Yes, they do.

 

[76-1]

Nowadays police routinely use lethal force if someone refuses to cooperate or refuses to be arrested. The rules of the game in our society are, if a police officer says stop, you stop. If a police officer says raise your hands, you raise your hands. A lot of our fellow citizens refuse to abide by that simple rule. Being a police officer is a dangerous occupation. When someone refuses to play by the rules, a police officer spots this immediately and shifts into danger zone mode. The consequence is often lethal.

Play by the rules or suffer the consequences.)

His wife and son were both shot by snipers over two hundred yards away (the way I recall it)... They was no imminent threat to law enforcement officers...

Shooting the wife and child should have triggered some major ramifications as to how the FBI operates..., it didn't... If anything, they've doubled down as their being far, far above the very laws they've sworn to enforce...

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Yes, they do.

What percent of police encounters involve lethal force?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Nowadays police routinely use lethal force if someone refuses to cooperate or refuses to be arrested. The rules of the game in our society are, if a police officer says stop, you stop. If a police officer says raise your hands, you raise your hands. A lot of our fellow citizens refuse to abide by that simple rule. Being a police officer is a dangerous occupation. When someone refuses to play by the rules, a police officer spots this immediately and shifts into danger zone mode. The consequence is often lethal.

Play by the rules or suffer the consequences.

As 76-1 mentioned, it was snipers that killed the wife and child. The family dog discovered them setting the ambush. They shot the dog. Then when they did that, the family started to shoot back. They shot his child.

He had views that were outside the mainstream and were/are radical (wrong even) but that isn't a crime, let alone a capital crime. His crime was failure to appear for selling shotguns, a charge which was not going to stick.

The guy didn't even get a chance to surrender before the feds tried to arrest him. So no, that isn't how this is supposed to go.

 

[UncleMark]

What percent of police encounters involve lethal force?

Probably about the same as FBI encounters.

 

[larsIU]

No they don’t.

Would it make a difference if lurker said just "force" instead of "lethal force".

 

[iuwclurker]

His crime was failure to appear for selling shotguns, a charge which was not going to stick.

His failure to appear is what started it. He broke the rules of the game. That doesn’t necessarily lead to the consequences that actually unfolded but it was the beginning. They never would have come to his Ruby Ridge Ranch if he had just appeared as required. Whether the charges would stick or not is entirely irrelevant.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes, they do.

Nonsense. Show your work. Stats are readily available.

 

[iuwclurker]

Would it make a difference if lurker said just "force" instead of "lethal force".

COH is objecting to my use of “routinely“ but of course he doesn’t say that. COH routinely leaves out clarifying details because he wants to incite conflict.

 

[iuwclurker]

Nonsense. Show your work. Stats are readily available.

No. I’m going to eat breakfast. Like COH you are objecting to my use of routinely. You know full well they use lethal force when they do. What you don’t get is what I mean by routinely. That’s what you should be asking. But that requires some thought on your part.

 

[mcmurtry66]

No. I’m going to eat breakfast. Like COH you are objecting to my use of routinely. You know full well they use lethal force when they do. What you don’t get is what I mean by routinely. That’s what you should be asking. But that requires some thought on your part.

My guess is there are about 10 million arrests per year. I suspect in an average sized metro there are a thousand resisting per year. If you think cops routinely use lethal force you're nuts

 

[iuwclurker]

Would it make a difference if lurker said just "force" instead of "lethal force".

I said and meant lethal force by the way. Ironically, I think it was precisely COH who clued me in to the routine use of lethal force. In other words, he or someone posted a link about the training to fire several rounds to ensure they subdue the suspect.

In short, the routine to which I’m referring is the trained routine to use multiple rounds in the context of the police officer deciding to fire rounds at all. It’s a trained routine.

 

[iuwclurker]

If you think cops routinely use lethal force you're nuts

I’ll tell you exactly what I think. I think you had a knee-jerk reaction to my post based on misunderstanding my use of the word routinely.

In contrast to you, COH did not have a knee-jerk reaction. His reaction was to incite conflict. That was his intent. Which I didn’t prove incidentally.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

COH is objecting to my use of “routinely“ but of course he doesn’t say that. COH routinely leaves out clarifying details because he wants to incite conflict.

Would it make a difference if lurker said just "force" instead of "lethal force".

Use of any force is never the first option—except in special clearly understood circumstances. I’ll leave it to you guys to flesh out the meaning of routinely. That said, if the subjects routinely refuse to cooperate and/or routinely actively resist, then routinely might be an appropriate word for police behavior.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No. I’m going to eat breakfast. Like COH you are objecting to my use of routinely. You know full well they use lethal force when they do. What you don’t get is what I mean by routinely. That’s what you should be asking. But that requires some thought on your part.

Good lord, are you ever full of shit this morning.

 

[iuwclurker]

Good lord, are you ever full of shit this morning.

Mirroring your best, my good sir.

I happen to think twice before I have a knee-jerk response to someone’s post because I realize I might’ve misunderstood their meaning.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Use of any force is never the first option—except in special clearly understood circumstances. I’ll leave it to you guys to flesh out the meaning of routinely. That said, if the subjects routinely refuse to cooperate and/or routinely actively resist, then routinely might be an appropriate word for police behavior.

They have a use of force continuum that dictates escalation

 

[iuwclurker]

if the subjects routinely refuse to cooperate and/or routinely actively resist, then routinely might be an appropriate word for police behavior.

And of course if you reread my post you’ll see that I was referring specifically to such contexts.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I’ll tell you exactly what I think. I think you had a knee-jerk reaction to my post based on misunderstanding my use of the word routinely.

In contrast to you, COH did not have a knee-jerk reaction. His reaction was to incite conflict. That was his intent. Which I didn’t prove incidentally.

It doesn't matter how you walk back your use of the word, by whatever definition used in the context of this discussion, you are wrong. Instead of just saying, "I was wrong" you are now piling on bull shit.

You were wrong. Shooting people is not part of the routine of making an arrest. It does not routinely happen. You weren't talking about routine shooting training when you started this.

 

[iuwclurker]

It doesn't matter how you walk back your use of the word, by whatever definition used in the context of this discussion, you are wrong. Instead of just saying, "I was wrong" you are now piling on bull shit.

You were wrong. Shooting people is not part of the routine of making an arrest. It does not routinely happen. You weren't talking about routine shooting training when you started this.

Nope. You are wrong and the rest of you guys are wrong to misinterpret my post and instead of being civil and asking yourself do I really understand him, you jump to a conclusion. That’s one of the most frequent bases for argument on this board. Learn.

“Shooting people is not part of the routine of making an arrest.” You see, you created that context. That wasn’t my context. I wasn’t talking about making an arrest. I was talking about when a policeman feels threatened, endangered, the danger zone, as I called it. When he feels the need to draw his gun and fire shots. He will err on the side of lethal force in that context. He will fire multiple rounds. That is what is trained according to the post that someone posted long ago in the George Floyd Times I think it was.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Mirroring your best, my good sir.

I happen to think twice before I have a knee-jerk response to someone’s post because I realize I might’ve misunderstood their meaning.

I actually paid you a compliment by pointing out you are not full of shit every morning, but in your haste you misunderstood.

 

[iuwclurker]

I actually paid you a compliment by pointing out you are not full of shit every morning, but in your haste you misunderstood.

I stand corrected and thank you, Sir, for your profound compliment. 🥰

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I said and meant lethal force by the way. Ironically, I think it was precisely COH who clued me in to the routine use of lethal force. In other words, he or someone posted a link about the training to fire several rounds to ensure they subdue the suspect.

In short, the routine to which I’m referring is the trained routine to use multiple rounds in the context of the police officer deciding to fire rounds at all. It’s a trained routine.

No one would have thought that's what you meant after reading the sentence in question.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I actually paid you a compliment by pointing out you are not full of shit every morning, but in your haste you misunderstood.

hehe

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You give Weaver too much credit.

Government at all levels and in all branches, plus many of those who sit in various government chairs, plus those who believe their mission is to point out to the rest of us that government is non-responsive and corrupt do a great job furthering the modern era of government hatred.

As far as the FBI is concerned, despite its reputation for investigative expertise and thoroughness, and dozens of complimentary TV shows and movies, there never was a time in our history where the FBI was not corrupted by various and different influences and didn’t abuse its authority. Weaver was the beginning of public understanding of that.

We chose not to understand in the 50s and 60s. It was all there.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

You give Weaver too much credit.

Government at all levels and in all branches, plus many of those who sit in various government chairs, plus those who believe their mission is to point out to the rest of us that government is non-responsive and corrupt do a great job furthering the modern era of government hatred.

As far as the FBI is concerned, despite its reputation for investigative expertise and thoroughness, and dozens of complimentary TV shows and movies, there never was a time in our history where the FBI was not corrupted by various and different influences and didn’t abuse its authority. Weaver was the beginning of public understanding of that.

Very few people in the '90s thought the federal government, the Deep State, and the MSM were as monstrous as they have shown themselves to be in recent years. Has there been a major degeneration, or were they nearly this bad back then as well? Hard to say.