From: [c d t] at [sw.stratus.com] (C. D. Tavares) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.media,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Religious cult in Waco Texas Date: 3 Mar 1993 19:52:27 GMT In article <[1993 Mar 3 151646 24109] at [gboro.rowan.edu]>, [k--lr--y] at [gboro.rowan.edu] (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > Whether the religious group in particular was innocent to start with, they > don't seem to be innocent now. Four people are dead, and the preliminary > reports are that they were killed by the religious group. (This may turn > out to be wrong, of course.) There is a CHANCE that these deaths are properly categorized as legal self-defense from an illegal assault. I realize this is not proven, but various reports suggest this; so the rest of my posting will make this assumption strictly in order to make my point. Remember, these citizens are considered innocent until proven guilty, and my purpose here is to nurture a clearly reasonable doubt. So far, the news has not really described what the warrant was about that would justify an invasion by a small government army with automatic weapons to take control of this compound. Certain reports I have heard indicate that approximately 100 agents converged on private property and opened hostilities with concussion grenades BEFORE asking anyone to surrender himself to arrest. This is hardly constitutional government procedure -- in fact, it is storm trooper tactics. Korash was hardly "holed up" in the compound -- he jogged outdoors every day. Yet, instead of accosting him and serving him during one of these outings, BATF preferred to launch a full scale, high-visibility assault on the buildings, with media trucks carefull deployed. A different report states that some months previously, a Texas peace officer who apparently UNDERSTOOD the proper way to serve a warrant had come to the door and asked Korash to surrender his weapons and come with them on a child abuse charge, and met no resistance whatsoever (after which there was a proper hearing and trial, and Korash was acquitted of the charge). The same arms were present then. In short, there is no evidence that anything DANGEROUS was going on or was about to go on in this compound. The public take on this seems to be, "well, look, they were stockpiling guns; that must mean that they were dangerous!" But, glossing over the fact that (as far as has been reported) all these guns were owned LEGALLY, few people have tumbled onto the fact that all the violence here was PRECIPITATED by the government. "He must have been violent, because when I attacked him he shot back" is not very good logic, yet that is almost precisely what the media are offering up. One report suggested that BATF's problem was that the cult owned an "illegal machine gun." Yet the owner was properly and specially licensed to own such a gun. Why would you do a "no knock" invasion to confiscate such a gun -- do you expect the cult members to flush it down the toilet when you knock? And, if you suspect such a gun is there, how can you possibly make stupid statements to the press such as "We were taken unawares because they had bigger guns than we did?" In short, it remains unclear why BATF targeted this property AT ALL. > Like it or not, we give law enforcement officials rights that we don't give > anybody else. No, we do not. Rights are the province of citizens. Governments have powers, not rights. Never confuse the two. BATF's arrogance is legendary, and far exceeds the necessary use of its poowers. About a year ago, using much the same tactics, they smashed their way into a gun collector's house while he was not home. They broke open all his gun cabinets, tore up his walls, and torched his safes looking for an "illegal automatic weapon" that the guy didn't even have. They left a note saying "NOTHING FOUND -- BATF" on the floor. They also left all his guns and ammunition lying around on the floor, and his front door broken open. For at least a day, anyone walking by the house -- including any kid in the neighborhood -- could have strolled in and helped himself to all the weapons and ammo he could carry off. When the owner got home, he demanded to meet with BATF. They agreed, on the condition that he not bring a lawyer with him; otherwise, the agreement was off. Do you think law enforcement officials should have such "rights?" Do you think they actually HAVE such "rights?" Please tell me where they come from. > As agents of the court, they have a lot of power. Sometimes > they make mistakes. But when that happens, the rules are that you go along > with the mistake and try to straighten things out later. No, those aren't the rules. What you're saying is that whenever the government takes away your rights, you let them and try to get them back later. In that case, why have rights if the government can deny them, even temporarily, every time it pleases? What you're proposing sounds a lot like what happens under civil forfeiture today. Read up on this subject and see if you really think this is a good way for your "constitutional" government to operate. > Once you start shooting, there's no going back. Whatever your legal rights > are, they do not include killing people who are trying to arrest you. If it > was an unlawful arrest, and maybe it was, that doesn't confer a justification > for shooting the officers in question. This is not true. Your legal rights do, indeed, extend to lethal force if the arrest is unreasonable. 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT giving the individual citizen the power to ensure that this right, among others, is NOT -- even temporarily -- denied by the government. The BATF found out in this case, to its chagrin, what citizen sovereignity over the government actually means. This is not the first time that BATF has "Rambo'ed" its way into a situation that could and should have been handled with respect for the arrestee's civil rights. But it is the first time that they met citizens who had the power to resist. > If it > was an unlawful arrest, and maybe it was, that doesn't confer a justification > for shooting the officers in question. Further, the people who are dead may > not have done anything wrong -- they might have believed that there _was_ a > valid warrant, and the people who knew it was unlawful are still alive. That's unfortunate, but life sometimes isn't fair. Government agents are supposed to know and respect the limitations on their powers, just as individual soldiers are expected to refuse to obey illegal orders from officers. Regardless of what these individuals "believed," if they were actually shooting at citizens as part of an illegal invasion, the citizens had the right to defend themselves by shooting back. > Once shooting starts, that's enough justification for the police to decide > that they should detain everybody and let a court figure out who did what. > The police can't just let people shoot out of windows and ignore it. Right, especially not when the police started it. :-( > Even if there is confusion about who shot the dead officers, the authorities > now have a completely legal justification for arresting everybody and > collecting evidence. We have a police force so that they can get control of > potentially-dangerous situations Agreed -- certainly not so that they can CREATE dangerous situations! > and present a more-or-less orderly set of > facts before a court so that court can decide. They are far from perfect, of > course, but that doesn't mean the principle is groundless. I agree with what you say to a point. Still, I would not want to live in a country where the government could, by the simple expedient of shooting at me unjustifiably and getting me to defend myself, successfully get me imprisoned awaiting one of America's "speedy" trials so they can "sort out who did what to who." Especially since you know who always wins "he said, she said" arguments in court with enforcement agents. > I suspect that this religious group has not gotten a completely fair deal; but > the way to settle that -- the only workable one -- is to have a court weigh > the evidence and decide. As a matter of force, it is unlikely that this group > is equal to the challenge of fighting off the entire federal government. Think back to Watergate, Irangate, My Lai, the Keating Five, Herbert Hoover, Challenger -- the one thing you can be sure of is that whenever high officials are responsible for criminal activities, miscalculations, or atrocities, the bureaucracy closes ranks behind them. In the rare instances that they can't blame the entire crime on the victim, it will will instead be placed at the door of the lowest-level grunt that they can get away with convincing the public was "ultimately responsible." -- [c d t] at [rocket.sw.stratus.com] --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR [c d t] at [vos.stratus.com] write today for my special Investors' Packet...