The Firing Line Forums
Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > S.W.A.T. Magazine

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 15, 2006, 04:26 AM   #1
Red Grant
Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 98
Possible correction regarding Claire Wolfe...

In the latest S.W.A.T issue, Claire Wolfe wrote overall a good article about how the "elite" have different rules from the rest of us.



Sort of like, "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." from George Orwell's "Animal Farm".


One question, Claire claims that Vickie Weaver had been unarmed when she was shot.


According to my research, Vickie Weaver had been armed with a 9mm pistol, according to Bo Gritz, who was actually there and claimed to put her in the bodybag.


Please go to the footnote 810.


http://www.byington.org/carl/ruby/ruby4h.htm
Red Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15, 2006, 04:38 AM   #2
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Regardless of being armed or not, my understanding is that she was not displaying a firearm in her hand at the time she was killed. Her hands were full of Weaver's infant at the time.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15, 2006, 05:18 AM   #3
Red Grant
Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 98
Yes, I understand that, however, I was making a comment regarding the accuracy of Claire's statement regarding Vickie Weaver's status regarding whether she had been armed or not when she was shot.




When the "wrong" people see this kind of slip off, they will twist it to make it look like Claire was commiting a journalistic fraud.


In that article, Claire credited an attorny, Kevin Branscum (I kid you not.), for having done the legal research for the story.
Red Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15, 2006, 07:15 AM   #4
Rich Lucibella
Staff
 
Join Date: October 6, 1998
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10,166
Red-
Thanks. Given the fact that there were arms in the cabin during an armed standoff, all occupants were technically armed. I think what Claire was referencing was that, at the time of her death, Vicki was holding a baby, not a firearm. "Unarmed" was probably not a technically correct use of words, but I hope the point remains.
Rich
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Rich Lucibella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22, 2006, 02:12 PM   #5
rem33
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2006
Posts: 1,528
Horaruchi ( spelled wrong ) the shooter and his direct superiors should be serving several decades for that shooting, In general prison population where some justice could be delivered, also the cowardly idiot that shot the boy and dog. Several higher ups clear to Washington and the lying fools that set Randy up in the first place... That my friends IMO was a terrible act only made worse by the powders that be dismissing it.

That they (Vicky) was technically armed is a load of rubbish.
We have nor need this sort of thing in my country, again IMHO.

Plenty of terrific law enforcement officials who should be screaming at the top of their voices against this type of atrocities, as it hurts all law folks everywhere. They don't dare in fear of their careers again IMHO.
rem33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23, 2006, 02:41 AM   #6
Red Grant
Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
That they(Vicky) was technically armed is a load of rubbish.

Are you saying then that she was not armed when she was shot?


Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Horaruchi (spelled wrong) the shooter and his direct superiors should be serving several decades for that shooting, also the cowardly idiot that shot the boy and dog.


I agree.




Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Several higher ups clear to Washington and the lying fools that set Randy up in the first place.....That my friends IMO was a terrible act only made worse by the powders that be dismissing it.


Yes, I agree, but hasn't it been the way U.S. government operated more or less since the very beginning?

In fact, hasn't it been the way virtually all governments in history operated more or less throughout the history?





Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
We have nor need this sort of thing in my country, again IMHO.



Again, I agree, but this sort of thing will continue to happen whether I like it or not, if the powers that be find it in their perceived interest to do so and they think they can get away with it with minimal cost.


After all, who foot the bill to Randy and his familiy after this?


Those who were either responsible or thought to be responsible or U.S. tax payers?





Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Plenty of terrific law enforcement officials who should be screaming at the top of their voices against this type of atrocities, as it hurts all law folks everywhere.


Let's be reasonable on this one, how many U.S. soldiers screamed (figuratively speaking, will apply below to where appropriate) at the top of their voices against the rape and murder of the Iraqi girl and her family at the hands of a few (bad apples) of U.S. Army?


Or how many white Southern males screamed at the top of their voices against lynching of blacks during "Good Old Days"?


Or how many "liberal" newspapers screamed at the top of their voices against the abuse of freedome of press, through the instigation of lynching by their more opportunistic and mercenary colleagues by the means of politicized racist editorials during "Really Good Old Days"?




Or how many Americans screamed at the top of their voices against mistreatment of Natives by U.S. government?


There is such thing as "group solidarity", and it has little to do with any unversal, objective sense of "justice", but has much to do with protecting (or at least not intentionally damaging) the perceived collective interest of the members of the group.



Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
They don't dare in fear of their careers again IMHO.


I agree, and does this mean you believe they [plenty of terrific law enforcement officials] put their careers above justice? (By the way, who decides what is "just")?


Does this mean you believe they [plenty of terrific law enforcement officials] are more of mercenaries than heroes?


..........and if so, can you blame them?


Would you do any different if you were in their place?


Do you believe most members of this forum would do any different if they were in their [those plenty of terrific law enforcement officials] place?

Last edited by Red Grant; November 23, 2006 at 06:28 AM.
Red Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23, 2006, 11:53 AM   #7
rem33
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2006
Posts: 1,528
.
On the law enforcement folks, like all people there are those from very honest and just men to the complete opposite end if the spectrum. Thankfully I do hope/believe the former are in the majority. We are in bad shape if not, but thats another subject completely.

Other than that I do think I will stay with my original post on this.
I don't think she was armed and that it was murder in the worst degree.

Last edited by rem33; November 23, 2006 at 09:57 PM. Reason: back to original post
rem33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24, 2006, 02:36 AM   #8
Red Grant
Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Plenty of terrific law enforcement officials who should be screaming at the top of their voices against this type of atrocities, as it hurts all law folks everywhere. They don't dare in fear of their careers again IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
On the law enforcement folks, like all people there are those from very honest and just men to the complete opposite end if the spectrum. Thankfully I do hope/believe the former are in the majority.

I am assuming that you believe "those plenty of terrific law enforcement officials" are a part of the majority of the law enforcement folks, who are very honest and just.


Does this mean you believe that the majority of law enforcement folks who are very honest and just put their careers over "justice"?
(Again, may I ask who decides what is "just"?)



Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
I don't think she was armed and that it was murder in the worst degree.


The following is an excerpt of footnote 810, released through Lexis Counsel Connect, a communications and information service for attornys, managed by American Lawyers Media, L.P.



Soon after Harris' surrender, Gritz persuaded Weaver to allow him and Jackie Brown to come inside the residence and remove Vickie Weaver's body. He obtained a body bag and, with Randy Weaver's assistance, placed Vickie Weaver's body in the bag.

When Gritz placed the body in the bag, he removed what he described as a holstered nine milimeter semi-automatic pistol.

Please go to the bottom portion of the link, and look for footnote 810. http://www.byington.org/carl/ruby/ruby4h.htm



Vickie Weaver was armed when she was shot. (unless Randy strapped the holster after she had been shot, and why would he have done that?)


Of course, that doesn't mean the shooting was justified.

Let's just stick to facts, instead of overdramatization.


Facts show Vickie Weaver was no danger to anyone, so it was unjustified to shoot her.

Misrepresenting facts for overdramatization doesn't help Vickie Weaver or anyone else for that matter.

Last edited by Red Grant; November 24, 2006 at 03:42 AM. Reason: incorrect link
Red Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24, 2006, 10:34 AM   #9
rem33
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2006
Posts: 1,528
Sadly I seriously doubt the Majority of any group would place "honesty" or "justice" over their career.

If you don't understand the meaning it is fruitless to "explain".

Fact remains it was murder and no justice was served on/to those responsible.

I would question Gritz's honesty.
It has been several years but if "memory" serves all of what he said to Randy and/or the press didn't add up.

Quote:
Yes, I agree, but hasn't it been the way U.S. government operated more or less since the very beginning?

In fact, hasn't it been the way virtually all governments in history operated more or less throughout the history?
Agreed, but does this make it acceptable?

Last edited by rem33; November 24, 2006 at 11:47 AM.
rem33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29, 2006, 03:05 AM   #10
Red Grant
Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Sadly I seriously doubt the Majority of any group would place "honesty" or "justice" over their career.


I agree. Now, (assuming you are not finanicially independent yet, and mortgage/rent, car/education loans to pay, and you love your current career), are you going to be among those Majorities or among those Minorities who would place "honesty" or "justice over their career?


Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
If you don't understand the meaning, it is fruitless to "explain".







All I am asking you is to declare who decides what is "just".



Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
I would question Gritz's honesty.


Are you saying that Gritz was lying about removing a holstered nine milimeter pistol from Vickie Weaver?





Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Fact remains it was murder and no justice was served on/to those responsible.




Again, who decides what is "just"?



Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Agreed, but does this make it acceptable?



............and how did U.S. government realize "Manifest Destiny"?



using honest, and "just" and peaceful means?


Both you and I (and yes, Randy Weaver, and his surviving family, too) are beneficiaries of the consequences of what U.S. government did to the Natives.


Do you find what U.S. governement did to the Natives acceptable?
Red Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 29, 2006, 11:25 PM   #11
rem33
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2006
Posts: 1,528
Natives? Fer Pete's sake. Just where did that come from?

I believe I'm "JUST" beyond caring.
rem33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 30, 2006, 02:19 AM   #12
Red Grant
Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Natives? Fer Pete's sake. Just where did that come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
I believe I'm "JUST" beyond caring.
People in general would accept the consequence of action done to others with whom they would not feel "Group Solidarity" that they might have considered as "unjust" if that action had happened to themselves and/or those with whom they would feel "Group Solidarity" so long as this "unjust" action had been commited by either themselves and/or those with whom they would feel "Group Solidarity", especially when the consequence happend to be beneficial for themselves and/or those with whom they would feel "Group Solidarity".



Quote:
Originally Posted by rem33
Agreed, but does this make it acceptable?


Suppose someone claims to find it unacceptable, but does little to carry out what he considers as "just" because that someone is more interested in his career and/or well-being over "justice" as he sees it, then:


Does this mean this someone accept it or does not accept it?


Or


Are you going to do something significant/meaningful about it either now or sometime in the future to bring "justice" as you see it to those you think/hold responsible for what happend to Randy Weaver and his family even if that could cost either your well-being/comfort or a career (that you love)?
Red Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Page generated in 0.09961 seconds with 9 queries