This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The entire section of the article titled "Oklahoma City bombing" should be removed. A note about other events potentially related to or reference the Ruby Ridge event would be fine. But to completely describe the completely seperate event and people involved belongs in an article about "Oklahoma City bombing" event, not the "Ruby Ridge" event. Attempts to tie the two together blur lines of Encyclopaedia content with political conspiracy theories and opinions. Badlandz ( talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article does not claim why there were "people hiding out" on the property in the first place. Was it Weaver? Was it the Feds? The second paragraph mentions that "a firefight arose". Was Weaver in fatigues, or were the Feds? And why were US Marshalls on the property in the first place? Someone please cleanup and rewrite this article. ````02/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.45.5 ( talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to modesty assert that this article make the event sound like the federal agents went out of their way to "screw" the Weaver family. As a long time researcher for the DoD, I know that US government is flawed; however, I do not believe federal agents are that evil as a group -- perhaps individuals. And an operation of this size requires a group. As a group of people acting to screw the Weavers, somebody would have leaked something to the public. Thus I believe this article is biased: it must have left parts of the story out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.198.126 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
A family of white-separatists living in the mountains in isolation preying on apocalyptic ideas, perhaps they're not "all there". 130.207.198.126 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) CW Georgia Tech Research Institute
Geo. Tech, you need to read the bill of rights and constitution. Also, the santicty of the American home and the priciple of MYOB. Just wait until the government decides not to like your "overly-normative" views, and tries to eliminate you. You all will be singing a new tune... 68.231.188.151 ( talk) 03:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this article would be greatly strengthened by an overall edit. The writing is very colloquial (e.g. "Randy and Vicki Weaver were an outspoken couple trying to make their way in Idaho").
Also, can people sign/dates their comments on this page? You just have to use four tildes (~). It makes it a lot easier to read. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The first section 'Background' is hard to follow, I don't quite understand the infiltration plot. Please consider people who read this article without prior knowledge of the incident. What were the charges, and where did the charges came from?
The article contains plenty of POV, but at least the course of events (disputes and all) is made clear. POV expressions: "explained away", "'mix-up'" (the quotes), "clandestinely" (why was it?). I also find "hotly debated" remarkable, given the rest of the sentence and the article on Randy Weaver himself. [unsigned]
I don't get this, he shot the dog but how does it go from there to an exchange of gunfire? It almost reads like the dog shot back or something. :?
I mostly reverted something- /* Events */ revert most of first paragraph of events [08:14, 22 September 2005 204.249.77.141 (→Events)] -see talk
66.173.192.96 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The Weaver dog Striker did not bite DUSM Cooper or DUSM Roderick. Striker barked at them. The prosecution ballistics expert who testified at the Weaver-Harris trial stated that the dog was hit with a .223 round that penetrated two inches from the rectum and exited the chest ("The DUSM shot at the pursuing dog in self-defense" the dog was pursuing arse end first I guess). The 9mm hollowpoint that killed Sammy Weaver entered his back, went thru his heart and exited his chest ("accidentally injured Weaver's son"--Sammy was hit through the right elbow with Degan's M16 and through his heart with Cooper's Colt SMG and neither marshal claimed they pulled their triggers accidentally--you can legally justify a deliberate shot, you cannot legally justify an accidental shooting, so spinning it as an accident does not help the marshals). Both Sammy and the dog had their backs to the agents who shot them. The old west contempt for "back shooters" contributed to the outrage over this incident. The spin that the government and its apologists try to put on this story will keep it and "a deep mistrust for the Federal government" alive forever. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ruby Ridge song - I am the songwriter of Up on Ruby Ridge and give my permission for my lyrics for appear on your page related to Ruby Ridge. Frank Delaney www.mtamicro.com
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18 66.173.192.96
I used to live in that part of Idaho, back when this all occurred. There is no place named Ruby Ridge. The area is called Caribou Ridge, which Ruby Creek runs through. Ruby Ridge is a mythological fantasy created by the media for alliterative purposes. -- [jon] [talk] 14:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good grief. Hasn't anybody noticed that the latitude and longitude above is not valid? There are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in a degree - so "Latitude 53degrees 85 min 64 sec North" is bogus, as is the longitude given. Further, longitude 53 degrees east, latitude 53 degrees north is actually in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, about 100 miles NE of the Spotted Islands - not real close, almost 3000 miles away from "Ruby Ridge"!
The actual lat/lon is closer to 48 degrees 37 minutes N, 116 degrees 29 minutes W, about 10 miles SW of Bonners Ferry, ID as the crow flies.
This kind of error just makes Wikipedia even more suspect than it already is... 204.120.131.252 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Horiuchi shot at Harris as he approached the door, and missed. Shooting a moving target at long distance is extremely difficult, and Horiuchi did not hit his intended target. The door to the cabin opened out, and the curtains were drawn against the window. Horiuchi did not know Vicki was behind the door when he shot at Harris. Again, this is all laid out well in the court documents from the 9th Circuit. Sources such as that are much better than your unsupported speculation regarding what Horiuchi did or did not see when he shot, and your unsupported claims about what "sniper procedures" are.
Reverting back.
Why "compound" instead of "house"? Because only politically correct individuals may live in houses. Anyone who isn't "politically correct" lives in "compounds" because this conjures up images of dangerous, snarling, gun toting ("...keep amd bear arms...") extremists bordering on barbarism. It's just another way to de-humanize certain groups so that it might become acceptable in the publics eye to "deal with them."
Incidentally much of the "background" section is purely speculation. "People Weekly" is only a notch or two above the "National Enquirer" and as such should be held as only slightly more reliable.
Historiocality 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, any mention of someone's thought or feelings at a particular moment is conjecture as well, unless you can mind read better than me. This should also apply when citing third party sources (i.e. magazines, "expert" conjecture, etc) which speculate on peoples thoughts and feelings. Historiocality 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Back to head subject: Horiuchi and Vicki Weaver. This sketch was drawn of the 22 Aug 1992 shooting situation by the FBI sniper on 1 Sep 1992. After Horiuchi testified at trial, the prosecutor received this sketch from the FBI in a bundle of evidence that had been requested by the defense before the trial. Prosecutor Howen described it as the lowest point in his career. When he presented the evidence to the trial judge and defense attorneys, the defense were outraged and Judge Lodge scheduled Horiuchi to be recalled to the stand to retestify. Judge Lodge also fined the government for failure to timely supply the evidence. The defense contended the two heads in the window of the door meant that Horiuchi could see Elisheba and Vicki Weaver when he shot. Horiuchi testified the two heads were his guess of the positions of Sara and Randy Weaver who ran through the door ahead of Harris (the running stick figure). The "+" marked the position of the crosshairs (same position as the bullet hole in the window of the actual door presented as evidence in the Senate Hearing on Ruby Ridge) and the "mil dot" represented the lead time allowing for Harris and the bullet to arrive at the same point at the same time. The bullet went through Vicki's head, killing her, and then through Harris' arm into his chest, stopping about an inch from his heart. Horiuchi did not miss Harris. Horiuchi did hit his intended target on the second shot, with collateral. Horiuchi testified that when he shot Randy Weaver with the first shot, he thought he was shooting Harris, so in a sense he hit both Randy and Vicki as collateral damage intending to kill Harris. Naaman Brown ( talk) 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason given for the 4-week delay in producing the evidence was that FBI HQ believed the evidence was needed for the defense phase of the trial. It was actually needed for the prosecution phase of the trial: prosecution direct and defense cross questioning of Horiuchi as a prosecution witness. (DOJ OPR Report IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES INVESTIGATED O. ALLEGED FAILURE OF USAO TO NOTIFY THE DEFENSE OF BRADY MATERIAL AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION) Naaman Brown ( talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention for the penalty for the sale of a shotgun 3/8ths of an inch too short. He violated the National Firearms Act of 1934. The government set up a giant stake out with hundreds of agents and killed his wife and son all because Randy Weaver did not pay the transfer tax of $5 and failed to show up in court. Also, there seems to be a lot of debate about NPOV. Perhaps someone could make a separate article about the "Ruby Ridge Controversy" or something? Its just an idea, dont know if there's enough info/debate to do it right or not.
My last edit was to better conform to Harris's testimony in the official report. He says: "A camouflaged [sic] person was in the road and he shot Striker. Sam yelled 'You shot Striker, you sonafabitch!' And they pointed a gun at Sam. Sam opened [sic] fire. I took cover behind a stump and Sam headed up the road toward home. it appeared [sic] as though Sam had been wounded in the right arm . . . . THE men were still shooting at Sam, so I shot one of the sons of bitches. After they killed Sam one of the FEDs jumped out of the woods and for the first time declared he was a federal marshal. The FEDs then grabbed their wounded and left. I then headed home up the road and spotted Sam's body laying in the road without a doubt shot in the back." , so, from his viewpoint (which that paragraph is from), there are more than one marshals shooting at Sam, and he shot 'one' of them.
I wish there was a description of the marshals story, but there are multiple stories, and it is probably too long to get into details.-- 12.110.196.19 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This article clearly has bias running entirely through it. It's written more like a story than fair information. The majority of the information given is alright, but most of the article needs to be completly rewritten, it's shameful.
The next day, a government sniper named Lon Horiuchi wounded Weaver, then killed Weaver’s wife Vicky, with a single shot to the head, and wounded another son. Vicky Weaver was holding a baby in her hands when shot dead.
added wife's name Vicky and the fact that she was holding a baby (not holding a gun) when shot. NOPV?
User:70.232.45.141 11 November, 2005
This article is terrible skewed and not very factual. PErhaps it shoudl be rewritten by some who is not anti-government or a conspiracy theorist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.166.102.70 ( talk • contribs) .
Agreed. Not quite up to standards.
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
66.188.96.109 (
talk •
contribs) .
Come on!!! This was written by an anti-government conspirist? Please! There is absolutly no mention of the fact that after the slaying of Vicki Weaver (an act of gross negligence), the FBI and ATF cooked the books, destroyed evidence, and falsified reports. And this isn't just me saying it. I just got done watching a special on the History Channel that was very critical of Mr Weaver and his views (as they should be), but they did admit that the Federal government took this too far, and that they attempted to cover it up. I mean seriously! We have Marines on trial for killing terrorists who, wounded or not, were reaching for their weapons, and the sniper who shot Vivki Weaver is off the hook thanks to the Supremecy Clause. Talk about double standards!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the story will tell itself. It does not need any adornment. If you are not happy with the actions of law enforcement and want that to change, telling the story from a NPOV and letting the story tell itself will be more effective in accomplishing what you want than skewing the article. Rearden9 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was this removed: Of course, this violates one of the basic rules of gun handling: "Always be sure of your target and of what lies beyond it."? It's a very common sense rule of gun handling. The fact that a trained government sniper didn't follow one of the BASIC rules of gun handling, and it lead to the death of an innocent, is an important part of the story. 12.110.196.19 04:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has gone through a lot of changes since any discussion was held on it.
New sections have been added, and I see lots of "assumptions" on Randy Weaver's motivations behind his actions with no citations of any kind.
I went ahead and re-added the npov tag. 216.52.163.1 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)LUID
Biggest assumption of reasoning I've seen. This is a total white-wash of the facts and reads like a sanitised evening news report from the governments POV. Jachin 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is any biased, it is in favor of Randy Weaver. There is as much a lack of citation involving government actions and motives as there is involving Randy Weaver. 24.107.66.62 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote this, the lawyers for the FBI? How about we have this rewritten without all the POV?
Hmoul 03:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done what I can to cite where appropriate, and eliminate conjecture. Let's get this one to a NPOV.
This story is much too important to let it be compromised by opinion.
Nolo Contendre 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it is difficult to find an unbiased account of the events. What we do know was that everyone who witnessed those events was directly involved or is dead. An unarmed person was shot and killed by a FBI sniper in a non-hostage situation. No federal officers were in immediate danger from whomever was being targeted when the shot was taken. These are the facts of the case. Only because the federal government intervened was the FBI sniper not tried for this shooting. A jury found that the Weavers were the victims in this situation and made awards to the Weaver children accordingly. What is troubling about this case is that while most reasonable people don't agree with the philosophy of white supremacy we find the Weavers sympathetic. We see a federal law enforcement going beyond what most would view as a proportional response to the severity of Randy Weavers crimes. It appears that he was targeted because of his beliefs not the threat he posed to society. The death of a minor , his parent, and a federal agent over a firearms infraction has no justification. The burden of legal conduct in this tragedy was the FBI's and they clearly came up short. Trying to homogenize this piece of history misses the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.202.67 ( talk) 20:33, 14 January 2007
I'm removing the NPOV tag added and no references tag added by anon with one edit from this article. I have added a references section and I don't understand how this article favors any particular POV more than the other. Both sides made mistakes and this article makes note of the fact that the gov't paid the Weavers money in a settlement for their part in making the siege so bad. The article also notes that Randy was found guilty of committing a crime. Vivaldi ( talk) 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV: Suprynowicz, Vin (1999). "The Courtesan Press, Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny (Chapter 6)". Send in the Waco Killers -- Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998. Mountain Media. p. 288.
The idea that this source could be considered factual or neutral is laughable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.214.169.254 (
talk) 08:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"Federal agents shot samuel's dog; feeling threatend by the FBI gunfire upon him and his dog, Samuel began to fire back at the agent. That firefight resulted in his death and the death of a US Marshal by the name of William Degan."
How do we know that he fired back because he felt threatened? silasthecat,
76.199.25.114 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"How do we know that he fired back because he felt threatened? silasthecat, 76.199.25.114 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"
Well....if someone pops up in the woods where I am walking with my dog, and shoots him, I think most of us would feel threatened, among other things.
I added information from some articles I found through a subscription site-- from People, US News and World Report and the New York Times. Those are all pretty reliable sources. Unfortunately, none except a few NYT articles are online, so I just cited the dates, authors and titles of the articles. I'm also going to remove the tag because the article has citations now.-- Gloriamarie 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The recent jump in editing of this article may be related to the current confrontation between police and Ed and Elaine Brown. CWC 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just noticed that, looks like weaver has become somewhat involved in that affair. ~LUID
User 76.23.61.27 ( talk · contribs) added the following text to the article. Unfortunately, it's not the sort of thing we want in encyclopedia articles. (See WP:RS and related policies.) I've moved it here for discussion. Cheers, CWC 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In order to achieve maximal demolition an explosive charge would be placed under, or possibly inside the cabin, not on top of it. Also, if would be far safer, and less conspicious, to simply burn the cabin and bulldoze the residue. furthermore, a satchel charge is something normally used in military settings where you have to run to a target, place the bomb and run away. If "the government" was going to remove evidence, would they not use commercially available explosives and wire them around the cabin structure in a normal demolition fashion? To me the statement sounds as if not an outright lie, an overly strange interpretation of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.234.200 ( talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Were there any such orders? Could references to these orders be cited? - TazerPolice 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on deletion of the image of the book in the article: [2] Interested parties should comment there. Yaf ( talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that this page still carries an anti-government bias. It implies that the Weaver family were simply trying to live a life free from government regulation who happened to fall prey to the government that they were avoiding. It still needs a complete clean up. Perhaps a section detailing this debate would be useful. Jsgladstone ( talk) 08:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I found that the major discussion sympathizing with Weaver and describing his military history and relationship with his wife were plagiarized from another website [3]. I removed the material from that site and inserted a link to it in the reference page. This page still lacks neutrality and requires a point of view on the incident from people who do not sympathize with Randy Weaver or the separatist movement. Jsgladstone ( talk) 08:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I just learned about the bot that reverts pages. I have entered a false positive flag to prevent a revert. The large section removed was plagiarized verbatim from another website. It also was a very biased Randy Weaver biography irrelevant to the Ruby Ridge incident. Weaver's biography already exists on another page and thus isn't needed on this one. I will not edit the Weaver biography although that page is plagiarized. Rezguy ( talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The original author of this page writes in a very biased opinion that obviously supports Weaver and opposes actions taken by the U.S. Marshall's service. A section that I deleted stated that the Weavers responded to their barking dogs and went out to investigate. What the section that I did delete did not clearly state that was that Weaver, his son, and Harris were armed ( http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm). However the article did conveniently mention that federal agents shot the dog. Regarding the dog, the original article conveniently left out this statement in the internal federal report "He held the dog at bay with his firearm, but did not shoot for fear of provoking the Weavers. An exchange of gunfire occurred moments later, resulting in the death of Deputy Marshal William Degan, Sammy Weaver, and the dog" ( http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm). Also left out in the original article is who started the firefight, again from a source cited by the author: "According to the marshals, the fire fight began when Degan and Deputy Marshal Cooper rose to identify themselves. Kevin Harris wheeled and fired at Degan with a 30.06 rifle. Cooper returned fire and thought he hit Harris, though he had not" http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm).
Note that the citation for the above comes from a link provided by the original author of this page. It's validity is questionable since it comes from a private family website.
The STATE OF IDAHO, vs. LON T. HORIUCHI case (Case No. CR 97-097-N-EJL) in the US District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the case against Horiuchi on May 14, 1998 ( http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_ T3044235491&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3044235498&cisb=22_T3044235497&treeMax=true&treeWidth= 0&csi=6323&docNo=23). This is not stated in the article.
The article was written with an implication that Horiuchi deliberately shot Vicki Weaver. Department of Justice reports and the settlement state that Vicki was out of view of Horiuchi's view and was mistakenly shot ( http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/August95/444.txt.html).
The Ruby Ridge article is a very biased description that supports a separatist view against government. In the spirit of encyclopedic record, it should report the incident and the nature of the controversy. I am attempting to do this as I edit the article.
To support the original author's intent to show that Ruby Ridge is an example of an exaggerated application of law enforcement, I propose inserting a link to the US Justice Department statement by FBI Director Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh admits that Ruby Ridge was a mistake on the part of the FBI, although it defends the actions of the US Marshall's Service.
The original author fails to mention that US Marshall's were serving a warrant on a white supremacist who had had made threats against the President and other government and law enforcement officials. This bias needs to be balanced with a description of Weaver's anti-government paranoia, rather than the plagiarized section depicting him as a simple man persecuted by the government.
Rezguy ( talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Weaver was not a white supremacist, he was a white separatist. Quite a difference. Also, he had specifically not joined with the Aryans who were white supremacists, as the FBI had wanted him to, to spy on this organization located near his cabin. If the plagiarized content is gone, why do we need to keep referring to it? Yaf ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an incredibly well-documented incident in American history. There are are a mountain of highly reliable sources on the topic. My suggestion would be to collect some of those references and work from there, based on what they report. Articles in peer-reviewed journals and the most reputable news media would be a good place to start. Books published by academic presses would also be a good choice for research. Avoid disputing details or discussing the accuracy/reporting of primary references (court cases, gov't reports, etc) are accurate. Stick to discussing what the most reputable references report. Vassyana ( talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that these edits be made to the below article section. If they are not then I believe that the NPOV tag should be re-introduced.
The violent confrontation began when Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and his 14 year old son, Samuel, checked on why Weaver's dog had alerted to people hidden on Weaver's property dressed in "full Vietnam-style camouflauge, with night-vision goggles and full-auto M-16 machine guns".[1] The people fired and murdered Weaver's dog, a harmless Golden Retrever. A firefight arose, resulting in the murder by Fedral Agents of fleeing 14-year old Samuel who was shot in the back[2] US Marshal William Degan was also killed in the firefight.[3] Fearing for their lives the entire rest of the wever family secluded themselves in the house from the unknown attackers.
Suggestions:
1. Remove "violent" in first sentence to maintain neutrality.
2. Remove quote "full Vietnam-style..." from first sentence OR amend to clearly indicate perspective (i.e. using 'as described by') to maintain neutrality.
3. Correct grammar "checked on why had alerted to people..." first sentence - This requires a full re-write of the sentence.
4. Correct detail in first sentence identifying the participants of the confrontation - Randy Weaver and one of Weaver's dogs were involved.
5. Remove "murdered" and "harmless" in second sentence to maintain neutrality.
6. Remove "Golden Retrever" from second sentence - I do not know if the definite species of the dog has been established (or needs to be) however indications from both the federal authorities and the Weavers' are that it was a probable Yellow Labrador-mix.
7. Replace "murder by Fedral Agents" from third sentence - No charges of murder have been filed for any persons or authority for the death of Samuel Weaver.
8. Remove "fleeing" from third sentence OR introduce all detail of his participation in the gunfire leading up to and including his departure to maintain contextual neutrality - Samuel Weaver was moving away from the gunfight as indicated by his wound, however, according to Kevin Harris he fired shots at the marshals before he left. This detail indicates that, as an active participant in the gunfight, Samuel could have been hit by defensive fire as opposed to offensive fire from the marshals. This is important as no charges of murder/manslaughter/etc. have been filed.
9. Remove "who was shot in the back" OR add detail indicating where all wounds were sustained during the gunfire, including the fatal shot of Deputy Marshal Degan.
10. Remove additional "14-year old" to neutrality - Samuel Weaver's age has already been detailed in the paragraph, repeating the detail in the same paragraph could be seen as inflammatory.
11. Possibly add detail to establish the participant that shot Weaver's dog to maintain neutrality and full disclosure - All parties agree that Deputy Marshal Arthur Roderick shot and killed the dog.
12. Possibly add detail in fourth sentence to indicate which party shot and killed Bill Degan to maintain full disclosure and neutrality. - Though Harris self-incriminates in initial statements to the FBI to the shooting of Degan (which was the undisputed cause of death by all parties), both Harris and Weaver were charged, tried and acquitted of murder charges. All details for this must be disclosed or omitted in their entirety.
13. Correct title in fourth sentence - Degan's full title was 'Deputy U.S. Marshal' not "US Marshal" (the 'U.S.' is generally not written or spoken except when using a formal address, as would be used in the announcement of a death; this is why it might not be used elsewhere in the paragraph).
14. Merge second, third and fourth sentences to maintain neutrality - There are varying accounts from nearly every participant (including Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris) as to who might have initiated fire or what caused it so all events involving gunfire should be grouped to remove any suggestion of an established and agreed upon sequence of events.
15. Either remove completely OR site reference and clearly indicate perspective in fifth sentence.
Possible result:
That day Weaver's dogs detected the presence of U.S. Marshals in the area of the Weavers' property and began barking. Randy Weaver, Weaver's 14 year-old son Samuel, and Weaver's friend, Kevin Harris, investigated the noise and followed one of the dogs after the marshals. Soon after a gunfight arose resulting in the deaths of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, Samuel Weaver and the Weavers' dog.
Sorry about the length of this, I wanted to make sure all arguments were laid out because of the controversy. Also, I agree with above comment that considering of the amount of literature there is on this event, I think this article should be tagged until more detail is added from more sources. Mcpaine ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The changes that I made can all be verified using the Department of Justice documents and the other trial documents regarding the entire confrontation. The quotes from Suprynowicz's book are an interesting case. I don't know much about the book, but I find that I'm a little leery of taking at face value quotes from a chapter called "Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny" as non-neutral. The first quote "shot through the back" for instance: there is no dispute that Sammy Weaver suffered a fatal shot to the back in addition to an arm wound, but the context and wording in which the quote is being used seems anything but neutral, as you can see from my above arguments. Also for the "Vietnam-style camouflage..." quote, I don't know that there is any specific gear with this name. I thought all camouflage was the same with the exception of the desert fatigues being used in the Gulf currently (colored to more easily meld with sand, etc.) The DOJ report says this: "Each marshal was equipped with radios and night vision equipment and wore camouflage tops, pants, and boots. None wore bullet-proof vests, though they were available." It also seems to indicate that only Degan and Rodrick had M16's. Overall, I think the use of "Vietnam" has been invoked to create certain images and feelings engendered from that war (My Lai 40th anniversary was this month.) and not for any other reason.
In any case, I think the article needs to be tagged for the simple reason that for only 10 references, 5 of them come from the same book (I think 5, #2 seems to have lost it's reference). That doesn't seem to be enough sources. The tone is arguably non-neutral, the wealth of additional information available has not been incorporated in the article and in the time I wrote my last comments, someone has added two sentences to the paragraph; one of which has a quote with no reference. Also this sentence "According to the Weavers, this was the first announcement of the presence of law enforcement." (referring to after Vicki Weaver has been shot) is such a huge falsehood, it is painful. Kevin Harris stated himself that the federal officers identified themself during the time of the first gunfight (see Kevin Harris statement in DOJ report). It seems unbelievable that they wouldn't have been able to carry this knowledge into the second day of the incident. I'm going to try to tag the article, but am not sure I can. If I can't I implore someone else to do so. ( Mcpaine ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
This is being discussed on Wikipedia:Editor assistance (permalink to current state: [4]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopskatze ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All wikipedia articles start with a summary or an abstract for a reason: so that non-specialists can at a glance tell what the article is about. This is seriously lacking here. The only text available is long and detailed. As such, I still don't know what Ruby Ridge was about, as I don't have time to read the whole of it. Please write an intro, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.254.133 ( talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe most people would consider that explaining the circumstances surrounding the charges laid against Weaver, the failure to let him answer them in court, and the attack on his family and property in that order would be the most informative order in which to describe the events surrounding Ruby Ridge. That's why the sources do it in that order, that's why the article described it in that order prior to being gutted. John Nevard ( talk) 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A proper timeline presentation guts both the government cover-ups and the fringe conspiracy theories. Naaman Brown ( talk) 05:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of acronyms in this article without a prior statement as to what the acronyms mean. The ones I noticed right off was [b]BATF[/b] and [b]USAO[/b]. I know what BATF means, but have no idea as to what USAO is. These should be spelled out. Leobold1 ( talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
USAO is United States Attorney Office. Each federal district court has a USAO headed by a US Attorney (USA) or chief prosecutor, assisted by Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA) or assistant prosecutors. The US Marshal Service provides the law enforcement for the district court: each office has a chief US Marshal (USM) assisted by Deputy US Marshals (DUSM). It would be helpful if people using acronyms would make a habit of listing Full Name (acronym); like, Rules of Engagement (ROE) rather than leaving folks in the dark. Naaman Brown ( talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the Ruby Ridge incident and the DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was known as BATF and when the name was changed to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the homeland security reorganization it was briefly known as BATFE; current agency usage is ATF so while BATF appears in contemporaneous quotes (where it should be retained), ATF should be used in text of the article. Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's called,"Entrapment"! I've read the paragraph,
I am curious: is it legal for the BATF to have someone ask a possible felon to commit a crime, and then try that person for it? If it's legal, then is it moral — the right thing to do?
I remember in the news in my country a few months ago, how several drivers who went to court for speeding in the highways, were acquitted because the police admitted to having raced them in unmarked cars. So if the police is speeding and provoking others to break the speed limit themselves, then there's no conviction possible. The police was sternly rebuked by the judges.
Isn't this a parallel situation? I understand the danger of modifying firearms at will (not least the danger to the person using the weapon), and I understand the reasoning behind infiltrating a possibly dangerous organization (which seems to be the BATF's mobile in this case), but can't the authorities use fair means of finding and convicting criminals? It's one thing to infiltrate a criminal organization; it's another to prompt a crime. Or where will this stop? Other hypothetical ludicrous police actions come to mind:
Just asking... – Tintazul msg 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am curious: is it legal for the BATF to have someone ask a possible felon to commit a crime, and then try that person for it? If it's legal, then is it moral — the right thing to do?
It is not parallel in this case. The speeding cops were a) using unmarked cars to appear to be "normal" and b) they were provoking the crimes, which is entrapment. The Weaver case is something completely different. What the ATF sought to do was legal if the ATF/prosecutors were trying to set up a deal that would have let Weaver provide information in exchange for a reduced or dismissed legal charge. Nothing in the paragraph said they were asking him to do anything illegal; just provide them with information. Negotiating informant status is a form of plea bargaining, and is done all the time. Sometimes, it's the only way to get to the real powers behind certain criminal enterprises, like the Mafia, terrorist groups, or drug cartels.
There is nothing here indicating Weaver was asked to infiltrate; it's fairly obvious that they had enough proof that he was already a part of the organization or at least affiliated with it. Besides, if infiltration is the goal, the Feds wouldn't send in a criminal--they'd get one of their own to do it. If you were the FBI, ATF, or whatever, would you trust a criminal (or suspected criminal) to infiltrate a crime organization? Sorry, not enough control, and the alphabet soup law enforcement agencies are too much of control freaks to allow that.
Weaver was approached in June 1990 by ATF agent handler Herb Beyerly with a deal to go undercover or go to jail over the two guns Weaver had sold, made to undercover agent Gus Magisano's specifications, back in Oct of 1989. Notice the time span: the guns were made and sold in Oct 1989 but did not become a chargable offense until June 1990 (after Aryan Nations expelled ATF informant Gus Magisono). Weaver was not arrested over the guns until Jan 1991 just before the statute of limitations would have expired on the gun charge. Weaver had argued with the leader of Aryan Nations in July 1989, openly broke with AN by backing Charles Howarth in Sep 1989, and would have been a fool to go back to AN in June 1990. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
On entrapment and being asked to infiltrate
Weaver was acquited by the trial jury of charges that he made, possessed or sold sawn-off shotguns; the only defense the jury was allowed to consider on that charge was entrapment. The OPR Ruby Ridge Task force report detailed how agent handler Herb Byerly approached Weaver to become a snitch using the gun charge as leverage.
are all sources that establish that Herb Byerly approached Weaver to become an informant; one of the original reasons given to approach Weaver was that he had ran for county sheriff in 1988. Then, when Weaver refused, Byerly passed information to the USAO and USMS that investgation by USM Ron Evans and DUSM David Hunt found to be false. Byerly tried to tell the Senate Subcommitte that the claims that Weaver was a member of Aryan Nations, had criminal convictions, was a suspect in bank robbery and grew pot, were somehow typographical errors. Well, those typographical errors that mysteriously crept into Byerly's reports after Weaver flipped Byerly off and refused to become a snitch were the basis of many of the charges against Weaver and colored the response of the USAO, USMS and FBI to the Weaver family. 67.235.102.180 ( talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Ack! My un-refreshed page was showing me as logged in. Oops. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Entry: 07 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsabio ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I just read through this article for the first time, and, while it does still seem to retain some anti-government slant to it, this article has clearly come a long way from some of older text that I see being quoted here.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a period of time that is unaccounted for. Weaver was supposed to appear in court on 20 February, but I have it that his letter stated 20 March. Sounds like a misunderstanding that could have been sorted out without resorting to guns. But, in any event, it sounds like a misunderstanding that SHOULD have been sorted out by 20 March -- at which time Weaver would presumably have made his appearance in court. Yet the events that occurred at [what is now referred to as] Ruby Ridge occurred five months later -- 21 August 1992. There is nothing between 14 March and 21 August, except for references in the "Leadup" (sic) to Weaver refusing to leave his cabin and Federal Marshals planning to capture him. This section would benefit from a more explicit treatment of what did -- or, more likely, did not -- happen on 20 March 1992.
Another point that confused me: "Horiuchi took a second shot, which struck and wounded Harris, and killed Vicki Weaver." He did this with one bullet? Possible, I guess, but the article could benefit from some (minor) explication there.
Overall, the piece is still slanted. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to pass judgment, but to provide an unbiased accounting of the facts. For example, is it relevant to state that Vicki was holding her 10-month-old baby when she was shot and killed? Let's suppose that, when she was shot, she fell to the floor, and the baby suffered some sort of serious injury in the fall -- in that case, yes, it's relevant to include that information. But to simply include the fact of her holding the 10-month-old baby when she was shot smacks of an attempt to engage the reader emotionally, rather than a desire to objectively convey the relevant facts of the case.
I am also left wondering why, if there really was an error in the reassigned court date (upon which much of the accounting of the events is based), why was Weaver eventually convicted of missing his original court date? Or was it the 20 March date that he missed? I guess I've come full circle ... I need to know what is in that missing period of time.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsabio ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Where exact is/was the cabin? I am looking at Google Earth and I can't find it. Also, where does Randy Weaver live today? I'd venture a bet he's still in northern Idaho, and still nuttier than Woody Woodpecker. -- Ragemanchoo ( talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"A Justice Department review later found the second shot was unconstitutional" I wasn't aware that the Constitution had anything to say about how many shots a sniper is allowed to take. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 15:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The Ruby Ridge trial was one of the longest federal trials, with the longest jury deliberations up to that point. It would appear worthy of an article by itself: twice the federal judge fined the prosecution over exculpatory evidence withheld or not produced in a timely manner. Of the eighteen pages of the indictment, twelve were devoted to detailing the religious and political beliefs of the Weavers and four pages were devoted to detailing the criminal charges. Vicki Weaver although dead was charged as a co-conspirator.
The ten charges filed by the US Attorney Ron Howen on 19 Nov 1992 against the Weaver family were:
The disposition of charges by federal trial judge Edward Lodge and by the trial jury (Apr 1993) were:
Of ten charges against the Randy and Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris, the jury handed down six "Not Guilty" acquittals, the judge dismissed two charges based solely on prosecution evidence and set aside one conviction based on the jury's misunderstanding of the law. Randy Weaver was found guilty on only one charge: failure to appear in court on a gun charge that was dismissed as entrapment. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
From Ruby Ridge: Report of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1995. transcript of testimony before the committee is referenced as (mo/day/yr Tr. at pagenum (affiant))
From Section A. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, subhead 5. Quality of Information About Weaver:
From Section B. United States Marshals Service, subhead 2. Information and Intelligence Gathering and Transmission:
Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states the state manslaughter charges against Horiuchi were dismissed in federal court on the grounds of sovereign immunity. It says nothing about the dismissal being overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nor does it mention the actual reason the case was finally dismissed: a motion stating the State could not prove its case. These are critical facts that provide necessary context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.162.125 ( talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The WP article on Horiuchi goes into detail on the manslaughter charges, and I copy here since controversial subjects are often objects of vandalism or historical revisionism:
Wikisource Press_Release_Regarding_Charges_Filed_Against_Lon_Horiuchi: the DoJ press release on dismissal of charges includes the explanations "...federal prosecutors and Idaho prosecutors enforce different criminal laws, using different legal standards. .... In the state case, Idaho Boundary County prosecutor, Denise Woodbury, charged Horiuchi under Idaho's involuntary manslaughter statute, which makes it a crime to use a firearm recklessly, carelessly, or negligently. ... no federal crime covers the reckless, careless, or negligent use of a firearm. ... the available evidence did not support a federal criminal prosecution of Horiuchi. ... criminal investigation considered whether Agent Horiuchi violated federal civil rights law, and found that the critical element of willfulness necessary for a federal civil rights violation could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Such willfulness -- defined as knowing, intentional use of unreasonable force -- could not be made out against Horiuchi. ..."
The details of the dismissal of charges against Horiuchi are complicated, but devolve to the simple fact that federal agents could use lethal force under circumstances where a state, county or city policeman or deputy or a citizen acting in self-defense or defense others would be subject to criminal and/or civil action. See also the Little Bohemia Lodge FBI shooting. An American soldier under similar circumstances could be subject to war crimes charges. Before 1995 and the standardization of Use of Force by federal agencies, FBI standard Deadly Force Policy in 1992 did not include the qualifier "imminent" and the snipers on 22 Aug felt that the (mistaken) USMS HQ account of the 21 Aug shooting justified treating the Weavers as a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. The story that Site Commander Eugene Glenn and HRT Commander Dick Rogers learned from the DUSMs actually involved in the 21 Aug shooting (who were not consulted until the day after Sammy Weaver's body was discovered 23 Aug) changed their evaluation of the threat posed by the Weavers and prompted them to revoke the special Rules of Engagement (ROE) which actually violated the 1992 FBI Deadly Force policy. The officials who issued and approved the "can and should" ROE 1 and 2 were never held accountable.
The initial charge was dismissed by Judge Edward Lodge on the supremacy clause, the 9th circuit diagreed but the new county prosecutor had no desire to pursue the case, so nothing was resolved. Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have created this template Template:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action for use with articles like this that are in Category:Nonwar_armed_confrontations. It obviously is very simple, like Template:Infobox historical event which I modeled it on. Any critical information missing? It would be nice if others could help beef it up so the instructions could be more structured like Template:Infobox Military Conflict, Template:Infobox civilian attack or even Template:Infobox Militant organization. I'm going around to a few related pages. Please leave comments at Template_talk:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action. (Note: I came up with this because I wad disgusted with Military Info Box used in Waco Siege.)
{{Infobox Law Enforcement Action | Action_name = | Image_Name = | Image_Caption = | Also_known_ as = | Date = | Location = | Coordinates = | Purpose_of_Action = | Agencies_involved = | Target = | Coordinates = | Weapons/equipment = | Result = | Injuries = | Fatalities = | Followup investigations = | Notes = }}
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The entire section of the article titled "Oklahoma City bombing" should be removed. A note about other events potentially related to or reference the Ruby Ridge event would be fine. But to completely describe the completely seperate event and people involved belongs in an article about "Oklahoma City bombing" event, not the "Ruby Ridge" event. Attempts to tie the two together blur lines of Encyclopaedia content with political conspiracy theories and opinions. Badlandz ( talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The article does not claim why there were "people hiding out" on the property in the first place. Was it Weaver? Was it the Feds? The second paragraph mentions that "a firefight arose". Was Weaver in fatigues, or were the Feds? And why were US Marshalls on the property in the first place? Someone please cleanup and rewrite this article. ````02/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.45.5 ( talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to modesty assert that this article make the event sound like the federal agents went out of their way to "screw" the Weaver family. As a long time researcher for the DoD, I know that US government is flawed; however, I do not believe federal agents are that evil as a group -- perhaps individuals. And an operation of this size requires a group. As a group of people acting to screw the Weavers, somebody would have leaked something to the public. Thus I believe this article is biased: it must have left parts of the story out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.198.126 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
A family of white-separatists living in the mountains in isolation preying on apocalyptic ideas, perhaps they're not "all there". 130.207.198.126 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) CW Georgia Tech Research Institute
Geo. Tech, you need to read the bill of rights and constitution. Also, the santicty of the American home and the priciple of MYOB. Just wait until the government decides not to like your "overly-normative" views, and tries to eliminate you. You all will be singing a new tune... 68.231.188.151 ( talk) 03:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this article would be greatly strengthened by an overall edit. The writing is very colloquial (e.g. "Randy and Vicki Weaver were an outspoken couple trying to make their way in Idaho").
Also, can people sign/dates their comments on this page? You just have to use four tildes (~). It makes it a lot easier to read. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The first section 'Background' is hard to follow, I don't quite understand the infiltration plot. Please consider people who read this article without prior knowledge of the incident. What were the charges, and where did the charges came from?
The article contains plenty of POV, but at least the course of events (disputes and all) is made clear. POV expressions: "explained away", "'mix-up'" (the quotes), "clandestinely" (why was it?). I also find "hotly debated" remarkable, given the rest of the sentence and the article on Randy Weaver himself. [unsigned]
I don't get this, he shot the dog but how does it go from there to an exchange of gunfire? It almost reads like the dog shot back or something. :?
I mostly reverted something- /* Events */ revert most of first paragraph of events [08:14, 22 September 2005 204.249.77.141 (→Events)] -see talk
66.173.192.96 03:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The Weaver dog Striker did not bite DUSM Cooper or DUSM Roderick. Striker barked at them. The prosecution ballistics expert who testified at the Weaver-Harris trial stated that the dog was hit with a .223 round that penetrated two inches from the rectum and exited the chest ("The DUSM shot at the pursuing dog in self-defense" the dog was pursuing arse end first I guess). The 9mm hollowpoint that killed Sammy Weaver entered his back, went thru his heart and exited his chest ("accidentally injured Weaver's son"--Sammy was hit through the right elbow with Degan's M16 and through his heart with Cooper's Colt SMG and neither marshal claimed they pulled their triggers accidentally--you can legally justify a deliberate shot, you cannot legally justify an accidental shooting, so spinning it as an accident does not help the marshals). Both Sammy and the dog had their backs to the agents who shot them. The old west contempt for "back shooters" contributed to the outrage over this incident. The spin that the government and its apologists try to put on this story will keep it and "a deep mistrust for the Federal government" alive forever. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ruby Ridge song - I am the songwriter of Up on Ruby Ridge and give my permission for my lyrics for appear on your page related to Ruby Ridge. Frank Delaney www.mtamicro.com
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18 66.173.192.96
I used to live in that part of Idaho, back when this all occurred. There is no place named Ruby Ridge. The area is called Caribou Ridge, which Ruby Creek runs through. Ruby Ridge is a mythological fantasy created by the media for alliterative purposes. -- [jon] [talk] 14:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good grief. Hasn't anybody noticed that the latitude and longitude above is not valid? There are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in a degree - so "Latitude 53degrees 85 min 64 sec North" is bogus, as is the longitude given. Further, longitude 53 degrees east, latitude 53 degrees north is actually in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, about 100 miles NE of the Spotted Islands - not real close, almost 3000 miles away from "Ruby Ridge"!
The actual lat/lon is closer to 48 degrees 37 minutes N, 116 degrees 29 minutes W, about 10 miles SW of Bonners Ferry, ID as the crow flies.
This kind of error just makes Wikipedia even more suspect than it already is... 204.120.131.252 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Horiuchi shot at Harris as he approached the door, and missed. Shooting a moving target at long distance is extremely difficult, and Horiuchi did not hit his intended target. The door to the cabin opened out, and the curtains were drawn against the window. Horiuchi did not know Vicki was behind the door when he shot at Harris. Again, this is all laid out well in the court documents from the 9th Circuit. Sources such as that are much better than your unsupported speculation regarding what Horiuchi did or did not see when he shot, and your unsupported claims about what "sniper procedures" are.
Reverting back.
Why "compound" instead of "house"? Because only politically correct individuals may live in houses. Anyone who isn't "politically correct" lives in "compounds" because this conjures up images of dangerous, snarling, gun toting ("...keep amd bear arms...") extremists bordering on barbarism. It's just another way to de-humanize certain groups so that it might become acceptable in the publics eye to "deal with them."
Incidentally much of the "background" section is purely speculation. "People Weekly" is only a notch or two above the "National Enquirer" and as such should be held as only slightly more reliable.
Historiocality 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, any mention of someone's thought or feelings at a particular moment is conjecture as well, unless you can mind read better than me. This should also apply when citing third party sources (i.e. magazines, "expert" conjecture, etc) which speculate on peoples thoughts and feelings. Historiocality 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Back to head subject: Horiuchi and Vicki Weaver. This sketch was drawn of the 22 Aug 1992 shooting situation by the FBI sniper on 1 Sep 1992. After Horiuchi testified at trial, the prosecutor received this sketch from the FBI in a bundle of evidence that had been requested by the defense before the trial. Prosecutor Howen described it as the lowest point in his career. When he presented the evidence to the trial judge and defense attorneys, the defense were outraged and Judge Lodge scheduled Horiuchi to be recalled to the stand to retestify. Judge Lodge also fined the government for failure to timely supply the evidence. The defense contended the two heads in the window of the door meant that Horiuchi could see Elisheba and Vicki Weaver when he shot. Horiuchi testified the two heads were his guess of the positions of Sara and Randy Weaver who ran through the door ahead of Harris (the running stick figure). The "+" marked the position of the crosshairs (same position as the bullet hole in the window of the actual door presented as evidence in the Senate Hearing on Ruby Ridge) and the "mil dot" represented the lead time allowing for Harris and the bullet to arrive at the same point at the same time. The bullet went through Vicki's head, killing her, and then through Harris' arm into his chest, stopping about an inch from his heart. Horiuchi did not miss Harris. Horiuchi did hit his intended target on the second shot, with collateral. Horiuchi testified that when he shot Randy Weaver with the first shot, he thought he was shooting Harris, so in a sense he hit both Randy and Vicki as collateral damage intending to kill Harris. Naaman Brown ( talk) 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason given for the 4-week delay in producing the evidence was that FBI HQ believed the evidence was needed for the defense phase of the trial. It was actually needed for the prosecution phase of the trial: prosecution direct and defense cross questioning of Horiuchi as a prosecution witness. (DOJ OPR Report IV. SPECIFIC ISSUES INVESTIGATED O. ALLEGED FAILURE OF USAO TO NOTIFY THE DEFENSE OF BRADY MATERIAL AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION) Naaman Brown ( talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention for the penalty for the sale of a shotgun 3/8ths of an inch too short. He violated the National Firearms Act of 1934. The government set up a giant stake out with hundreds of agents and killed his wife and son all because Randy Weaver did not pay the transfer tax of $5 and failed to show up in court. Also, there seems to be a lot of debate about NPOV. Perhaps someone could make a separate article about the "Ruby Ridge Controversy" or something? Its just an idea, dont know if there's enough info/debate to do it right or not.
My last edit was to better conform to Harris's testimony in the official report. He says: "A camouflaged [sic] person was in the road and he shot Striker. Sam yelled 'You shot Striker, you sonafabitch!' And they pointed a gun at Sam. Sam opened [sic] fire. I took cover behind a stump and Sam headed up the road toward home. it appeared [sic] as though Sam had been wounded in the right arm . . . . THE men were still shooting at Sam, so I shot one of the sons of bitches. After they killed Sam one of the FEDs jumped out of the woods and for the first time declared he was a federal marshal. The FEDs then grabbed their wounded and left. I then headed home up the road and spotted Sam's body laying in the road without a doubt shot in the back." , so, from his viewpoint (which that paragraph is from), there are more than one marshals shooting at Sam, and he shot 'one' of them.
I wish there was a description of the marshals story, but there are multiple stories, and it is probably too long to get into details.-- 12.110.196.19 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This article clearly has bias running entirely through it. It's written more like a story than fair information. The majority of the information given is alright, but most of the article needs to be completly rewritten, it's shameful.
The next day, a government sniper named Lon Horiuchi wounded Weaver, then killed Weaver’s wife Vicky, with a single shot to the head, and wounded another son. Vicky Weaver was holding a baby in her hands when shot dead.
added wife's name Vicky and the fact that she was holding a baby (not holding a gun) when shot. NOPV?
User:70.232.45.141 11 November, 2005
This article is terrible skewed and not very factual. PErhaps it shoudl be rewritten by some who is not anti-government or a conspiracy theorist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.166.102.70 ( talk • contribs) .
Agreed. Not quite up to standards.
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
66.188.96.109 (
talk •
contribs) .
Come on!!! This was written by an anti-government conspirist? Please! There is absolutly no mention of the fact that after the slaying of Vicki Weaver (an act of gross negligence), the FBI and ATF cooked the books, destroyed evidence, and falsified reports. And this isn't just me saying it. I just got done watching a special on the History Channel that was very critical of Mr Weaver and his views (as they should be), but they did admit that the Federal government took this too far, and that they attempted to cover it up. I mean seriously! We have Marines on trial for killing terrorists who, wounded or not, were reaching for their weapons, and the sniper who shot Vivki Weaver is off the hook thanks to the Supremecy Clause. Talk about double standards!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the story will tell itself. It does not need any adornment. If you are not happy with the actions of law enforcement and want that to change, telling the story from a NPOV and letting the story tell itself will be more effective in accomplishing what you want than skewing the article. Rearden9 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Why was this removed: Of course, this violates one of the basic rules of gun handling: "Always be sure of your target and of what lies beyond it."? It's a very common sense rule of gun handling. The fact that a trained government sniper didn't follow one of the BASIC rules of gun handling, and it lead to the death of an innocent, is an important part of the story. 12.110.196.19 04:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has gone through a lot of changes since any discussion was held on it.
New sections have been added, and I see lots of "assumptions" on Randy Weaver's motivations behind his actions with no citations of any kind.
I went ahead and re-added the npov tag. 216.52.163.1 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)LUID
Biggest assumption of reasoning I've seen. This is a total white-wash of the facts and reads like a sanitised evening news report from the governments POV. Jachin 15:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is any biased, it is in favor of Randy Weaver. There is as much a lack of citation involving government actions and motives as there is involving Randy Weaver. 24.107.66.62 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Who wrote this, the lawyers for the FBI? How about we have this rewritten without all the POV?
Hmoul 03:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done what I can to cite where appropriate, and eliminate conjecture. Let's get this one to a NPOV.
This story is much too important to let it be compromised by opinion.
Nolo Contendre 05:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it is difficult to find an unbiased account of the events. What we do know was that everyone who witnessed those events was directly involved or is dead. An unarmed person was shot and killed by a FBI sniper in a non-hostage situation. No federal officers were in immediate danger from whomever was being targeted when the shot was taken. These are the facts of the case. Only because the federal government intervened was the FBI sniper not tried for this shooting. A jury found that the Weavers were the victims in this situation and made awards to the Weaver children accordingly. What is troubling about this case is that while most reasonable people don't agree with the philosophy of white supremacy we find the Weavers sympathetic. We see a federal law enforcement going beyond what most would view as a proportional response to the severity of Randy Weavers crimes. It appears that he was targeted because of his beliefs not the threat he posed to society. The death of a minor , his parent, and a federal agent over a firearms infraction has no justification. The burden of legal conduct in this tragedy was the FBI's and they clearly came up short. Trying to homogenize this piece of history misses the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.202.67 ( talk) 20:33, 14 January 2007
I'm removing the NPOV tag added and no references tag added by anon with one edit from this article. I have added a references section and I don't understand how this article favors any particular POV more than the other. Both sides made mistakes and this article makes note of the fact that the gov't paid the Weavers money in a settlement for their part in making the siege so bad. The article also notes that Randy was found guilty of committing a crime. Vivaldi ( talk) 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
NPOV: Suprynowicz, Vin (1999). "The Courtesan Press, Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny (Chapter 6)". Send in the Waco Killers -- Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998. Mountain Media. p. 288.
The idea that this source could be considered factual or neutral is laughable. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
65.214.169.254 (
talk) 08:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"Federal agents shot samuel's dog; feeling threatend by the FBI gunfire upon him and his dog, Samuel began to fire back at the agent. That firefight resulted in his death and the death of a US Marshal by the name of William Degan."
How do we know that he fired back because he felt threatened? silasthecat,
76.199.25.114 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"How do we know that he fired back because he felt threatened? silasthecat, 76.199.25.114 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"
Well....if someone pops up in the woods where I am walking with my dog, and shoots him, I think most of us would feel threatened, among other things.
I added information from some articles I found through a subscription site-- from People, US News and World Report and the New York Times. Those are all pretty reliable sources. Unfortunately, none except a few NYT articles are online, so I just cited the dates, authors and titles of the articles. I'm also going to remove the tag because the article has citations now.-- Gloriamarie 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The recent jump in editing of this article may be related to the current confrontation between police and Ed and Elaine Brown. CWC 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just noticed that, looks like weaver has become somewhat involved in that affair. ~LUID
User 76.23.61.27 ( talk · contribs) added the following text to the article. Unfortunately, it's not the sort of thing we want in encyclopedia articles. (See WP:RS and related policies.) I've moved it here for discussion. Cheers, CWC 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In order to achieve maximal demolition an explosive charge would be placed under, or possibly inside the cabin, not on top of it. Also, if would be far safer, and less conspicious, to simply burn the cabin and bulldoze the residue. furthermore, a satchel charge is something normally used in military settings where you have to run to a target, place the bomb and run away. If "the government" was going to remove evidence, would they not use commercially available explosives and wire them around the cabin structure in a normal demolition fashion? To me the statement sounds as if not an outright lie, an overly strange interpretation of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.234.200 ( talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Were there any such orders? Could references to these orders be cited? - TazerPolice 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on deletion of the image of the book in the article: [2] Interested parties should comment there. Yaf ( talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that this page still carries an anti-government bias. It implies that the Weaver family were simply trying to live a life free from government regulation who happened to fall prey to the government that they were avoiding. It still needs a complete clean up. Perhaps a section detailing this debate would be useful. Jsgladstone ( talk) 08:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I found that the major discussion sympathizing with Weaver and describing his military history and relationship with his wife were plagiarized from another website [3]. I removed the material from that site and inserted a link to it in the reference page. This page still lacks neutrality and requires a point of view on the incident from people who do not sympathize with Randy Weaver or the separatist movement. Jsgladstone ( talk) 08:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I just learned about the bot that reverts pages. I have entered a false positive flag to prevent a revert. The large section removed was plagiarized verbatim from another website. It also was a very biased Randy Weaver biography irrelevant to the Ruby Ridge incident. Weaver's biography already exists on another page and thus isn't needed on this one. I will not edit the Weaver biography although that page is plagiarized. Rezguy ( talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The original author of this page writes in a very biased opinion that obviously supports Weaver and opposes actions taken by the U.S. Marshall's service. A section that I deleted stated that the Weavers responded to their barking dogs and went out to investigate. What the section that I did delete did not clearly state that was that Weaver, his son, and Harris were armed ( http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm). However the article did conveniently mention that federal agents shot the dog. Regarding the dog, the original article conveniently left out this statement in the internal federal report "He held the dog at bay with his firearm, but did not shoot for fear of provoking the Weavers. An exchange of gunfire occurred moments later, resulting in the death of Deputy Marshal William Degan, Sammy Weaver, and the dog" ( http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm). Also left out in the original article is who started the firefight, again from a source cited by the author: "According to the marshals, the fire fight began when Degan and Deputy Marshal Cooper rose to identify themselves. Kevin Harris wheeled and fired at Degan with a 30.06 rifle. Cooper returned fire and thought he hit Harris, though he had not" http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby3.htm).
Note that the citation for the above comes from a link provided by the original author of this page. It's validity is questionable since it comes from a private family website.
The STATE OF IDAHO, vs. LON T. HORIUCHI case (Case No. CR 97-097-N-EJL) in the US District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the case against Horiuchi on May 14, 1998 ( http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_ T3044235491&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3044235498&cisb=22_T3044235497&treeMax=true&treeWidth= 0&csi=6323&docNo=23). This is not stated in the article.
The article was written with an implication that Horiuchi deliberately shot Vicki Weaver. Department of Justice reports and the settlement state that Vicki was out of view of Horiuchi's view and was mistakenly shot ( http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/August95/444.txt.html).
The Ruby Ridge article is a very biased description that supports a separatist view against government. In the spirit of encyclopedic record, it should report the incident and the nature of the controversy. I am attempting to do this as I edit the article.
To support the original author's intent to show that Ruby Ridge is an example of an exaggerated application of law enforcement, I propose inserting a link to the US Justice Department statement by FBI Director Louis Freeh. Mr. Freeh admits that Ruby Ridge was a mistake on the part of the FBI, although it defends the actions of the US Marshall's Service.
The original author fails to mention that US Marshall's were serving a warrant on a white supremacist who had had made threats against the President and other government and law enforcement officials. This bias needs to be balanced with a description of Weaver's anti-government paranoia, rather than the plagiarized section depicting him as a simple man persecuted by the government.
Rezguy ( talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Weaver was not a white supremacist, he was a white separatist. Quite a difference. Also, he had specifically not joined with the Aryans who were white supremacists, as the FBI had wanted him to, to spy on this organization located near his cabin. If the plagiarized content is gone, why do we need to keep referring to it? Yaf ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an incredibly well-documented incident in American history. There are are a mountain of highly reliable sources on the topic. My suggestion would be to collect some of those references and work from there, based on what they report. Articles in peer-reviewed journals and the most reputable news media would be a good place to start. Books published by academic presses would also be a good choice for research. Avoid disputing details or discussing the accuracy/reporting of primary references (court cases, gov't reports, etc) are accurate. Stick to discussing what the most reputable references report. Vassyana ( talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that these edits be made to the below article section. If they are not then I believe that the NPOV tag should be re-introduced.
The violent confrontation began when Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and his 14 year old son, Samuel, checked on why Weaver's dog had alerted to people hidden on Weaver's property dressed in "full Vietnam-style camouflauge, with night-vision goggles and full-auto M-16 machine guns".[1] The people fired and murdered Weaver's dog, a harmless Golden Retrever. A firefight arose, resulting in the murder by Fedral Agents of fleeing 14-year old Samuel who was shot in the back[2] US Marshal William Degan was also killed in the firefight.[3] Fearing for their lives the entire rest of the wever family secluded themselves in the house from the unknown attackers.
Suggestions:
1. Remove "violent" in first sentence to maintain neutrality.
2. Remove quote "full Vietnam-style..." from first sentence OR amend to clearly indicate perspective (i.e. using 'as described by') to maintain neutrality.
3. Correct grammar "checked on why had alerted to people..." first sentence - This requires a full re-write of the sentence.
4. Correct detail in first sentence identifying the participants of the confrontation - Randy Weaver and one of Weaver's dogs were involved.
5. Remove "murdered" and "harmless" in second sentence to maintain neutrality.
6. Remove "Golden Retrever" from second sentence - I do not know if the definite species of the dog has been established (or needs to be) however indications from both the federal authorities and the Weavers' are that it was a probable Yellow Labrador-mix.
7. Replace "murder by Fedral Agents" from third sentence - No charges of murder have been filed for any persons or authority for the death of Samuel Weaver.
8. Remove "fleeing" from third sentence OR introduce all detail of his participation in the gunfire leading up to and including his departure to maintain contextual neutrality - Samuel Weaver was moving away from the gunfight as indicated by his wound, however, according to Kevin Harris he fired shots at the marshals before he left. This detail indicates that, as an active participant in the gunfight, Samuel could have been hit by defensive fire as opposed to offensive fire from the marshals. This is important as no charges of murder/manslaughter/etc. have been filed.
9. Remove "who was shot in the back" OR add detail indicating where all wounds were sustained during the gunfire, including the fatal shot of Deputy Marshal Degan.
10. Remove additional "14-year old" to neutrality - Samuel Weaver's age has already been detailed in the paragraph, repeating the detail in the same paragraph could be seen as inflammatory.
11. Possibly add detail to establish the participant that shot Weaver's dog to maintain neutrality and full disclosure - All parties agree that Deputy Marshal Arthur Roderick shot and killed the dog.
12. Possibly add detail in fourth sentence to indicate which party shot and killed Bill Degan to maintain full disclosure and neutrality. - Though Harris self-incriminates in initial statements to the FBI to the shooting of Degan (which was the undisputed cause of death by all parties), both Harris and Weaver were charged, tried and acquitted of murder charges. All details for this must be disclosed or omitted in their entirety.
13. Correct title in fourth sentence - Degan's full title was 'Deputy U.S. Marshal' not "US Marshal" (the 'U.S.' is generally not written or spoken except when using a formal address, as would be used in the announcement of a death; this is why it might not be used elsewhere in the paragraph).
14. Merge second, third and fourth sentences to maintain neutrality - There are varying accounts from nearly every participant (including Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris) as to who might have initiated fire or what caused it so all events involving gunfire should be grouped to remove any suggestion of an established and agreed upon sequence of events.
15. Either remove completely OR site reference and clearly indicate perspective in fifth sentence.
Possible result:
That day Weaver's dogs detected the presence of U.S. Marshals in the area of the Weavers' property and began barking. Randy Weaver, Weaver's 14 year-old son Samuel, and Weaver's friend, Kevin Harris, investigated the noise and followed one of the dogs after the marshals. Soon after a gunfight arose resulting in the deaths of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, Samuel Weaver and the Weavers' dog.
Sorry about the length of this, I wanted to make sure all arguments were laid out because of the controversy. Also, I agree with above comment that considering of the amount of literature there is on this event, I think this article should be tagged until more detail is added from more sources. Mcpaine ( talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The changes that I made can all be verified using the Department of Justice documents and the other trial documents regarding the entire confrontation. The quotes from Suprynowicz's book are an interesting case. I don't know much about the book, but I find that I'm a little leery of taking at face value quotes from a chapter called "Eager Lapdogs to Tyranny" as non-neutral. The first quote "shot through the back" for instance: there is no dispute that Sammy Weaver suffered a fatal shot to the back in addition to an arm wound, but the context and wording in which the quote is being used seems anything but neutral, as you can see from my above arguments. Also for the "Vietnam-style camouflage..." quote, I don't know that there is any specific gear with this name. I thought all camouflage was the same with the exception of the desert fatigues being used in the Gulf currently (colored to more easily meld with sand, etc.) The DOJ report says this: "Each marshal was equipped with radios and night vision equipment and wore camouflage tops, pants, and boots. None wore bullet-proof vests, though they were available." It also seems to indicate that only Degan and Rodrick had M16's. Overall, I think the use of "Vietnam" has been invoked to create certain images and feelings engendered from that war (My Lai 40th anniversary was this month.) and not for any other reason.
In any case, I think the article needs to be tagged for the simple reason that for only 10 references, 5 of them come from the same book (I think 5, #2 seems to have lost it's reference). That doesn't seem to be enough sources. The tone is arguably non-neutral, the wealth of additional information available has not been incorporated in the article and in the time I wrote my last comments, someone has added two sentences to the paragraph; one of which has a quote with no reference. Also this sentence "According to the Weavers, this was the first announcement of the presence of law enforcement." (referring to after Vicki Weaver has been shot) is such a huge falsehood, it is painful. Kevin Harris stated himself that the federal officers identified themself during the time of the first gunfight (see Kevin Harris statement in DOJ report). It seems unbelievable that they wouldn't have been able to carry this knowledge into the second day of the incident. I'm going to try to tag the article, but am not sure I can. If I can't I implore someone else to do so. ( Mcpaine ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
This is being discussed on Wikipedia:Editor assistance (permalink to current state: [4]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopskatze ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All wikipedia articles start with a summary or an abstract for a reason: so that non-specialists can at a glance tell what the article is about. This is seriously lacking here. The only text available is long and detailed. As such, I still don't know what Ruby Ridge was about, as I don't have time to read the whole of it. Please write an intro, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.254.133 ( talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe most people would consider that explaining the circumstances surrounding the charges laid against Weaver, the failure to let him answer them in court, and the attack on his family and property in that order would be the most informative order in which to describe the events surrounding Ruby Ridge. That's why the sources do it in that order, that's why the article described it in that order prior to being gutted. John Nevard ( talk) 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A proper timeline presentation guts both the government cover-ups and the fringe conspiracy theories. Naaman Brown ( talk) 05:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of acronyms in this article without a prior statement as to what the acronyms mean. The ones I noticed right off was [b]BATF[/b] and [b]USAO[/b]. I know what BATF means, but have no idea as to what USAO is. These should be spelled out. Leobold1 ( talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
USAO is United States Attorney Office. Each federal district court has a USAO headed by a US Attorney (USA) or chief prosecutor, assisted by Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA) or assistant prosecutors. The US Marshal Service provides the law enforcement for the district court: each office has a chief US Marshal (USM) assisted by Deputy US Marshals (DUSM). It would be helpful if people using acronyms would make a habit of listing Full Name (acronym); like, Rules of Engagement (ROE) rather than leaving folks in the dark. Naaman Brown ( talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
At the time of the Ruby Ridge incident and the DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was known as BATF and when the name was changed to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during the homeland security reorganization it was briefly known as BATFE; current agency usage is ATF so while BATF appears in contemporaneous quotes (where it should be retained), ATF should be used in text of the article. Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's called,"Entrapment"! I've read the paragraph,
I am curious: is it legal for the BATF to have someone ask a possible felon to commit a crime, and then try that person for it? If it's legal, then is it moral — the right thing to do?
I remember in the news in my country a few months ago, how several drivers who went to court for speeding in the highways, were acquitted because the police admitted to having raced them in unmarked cars. So if the police is speeding and provoking others to break the speed limit themselves, then there's no conviction possible. The police was sternly rebuked by the judges.
Isn't this a parallel situation? I understand the danger of modifying firearms at will (not least the danger to the person using the weapon), and I understand the reasoning behind infiltrating a possibly dangerous organization (which seems to be the BATF's mobile in this case), but can't the authorities use fair means of finding and convicting criminals? It's one thing to infiltrate a criminal organization; it's another to prompt a crime. Or where will this stop? Other hypothetical ludicrous police actions come to mind:
Just asking... – Tintazul msg 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am curious: is it legal for the BATF to have someone ask a possible felon to commit a crime, and then try that person for it? If it's legal, then is it moral — the right thing to do?
It is not parallel in this case. The speeding cops were a) using unmarked cars to appear to be "normal" and b) they were provoking the crimes, which is entrapment. The Weaver case is something completely different. What the ATF sought to do was legal if the ATF/prosecutors were trying to set up a deal that would have let Weaver provide information in exchange for a reduced or dismissed legal charge. Nothing in the paragraph said they were asking him to do anything illegal; just provide them with information. Negotiating informant status is a form of plea bargaining, and is done all the time. Sometimes, it's the only way to get to the real powers behind certain criminal enterprises, like the Mafia, terrorist groups, or drug cartels.
There is nothing here indicating Weaver was asked to infiltrate; it's fairly obvious that they had enough proof that he was already a part of the organization or at least affiliated with it. Besides, if infiltration is the goal, the Feds wouldn't send in a criminal--they'd get one of their own to do it. If you were the FBI, ATF, or whatever, would you trust a criminal (or suspected criminal) to infiltrate a crime organization? Sorry, not enough control, and the alphabet soup law enforcement agencies are too much of control freaks to allow that.
Weaver was approached in June 1990 by ATF agent handler Herb Beyerly with a deal to go undercover or go to jail over the two guns Weaver had sold, made to undercover agent Gus Magisano's specifications, back in Oct of 1989. Notice the time span: the guns were made and sold in Oct 1989 but did not become a chargable offense until June 1990 (after Aryan Nations expelled ATF informant Gus Magisono). Weaver was not arrested over the guns until Jan 1991 just before the statute of limitations would have expired on the gun charge. Weaver had argued with the leader of Aryan Nations in July 1989, openly broke with AN by backing Charles Howarth in Sep 1989, and would have been a fool to go back to AN in June 1990. Naaman Brown ( talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
On entrapment and being asked to infiltrate
Weaver was acquited by the trial jury of charges that he made, possessed or sold sawn-off shotguns; the only defense the jury was allowed to consider on that charge was entrapment. The OPR Ruby Ridge Task force report detailed how agent handler Herb Byerly approached Weaver to become a snitch using the gun charge as leverage.
are all sources that establish that Herb Byerly approached Weaver to become an informant; one of the original reasons given to approach Weaver was that he had ran for county sheriff in 1988. Then, when Weaver refused, Byerly passed information to the USAO and USMS that investgation by USM Ron Evans and DUSM David Hunt found to be false. Byerly tried to tell the Senate Subcommitte that the claims that Weaver was a member of Aryan Nations, had criminal convictions, was a suspect in bank robbery and grew pot, were somehow typographical errors. Well, those typographical errors that mysteriously crept into Byerly's reports after Weaver flipped Byerly off and refused to become a snitch were the basis of many of the charges against Weaver and colored the response of the USAO, USMS and FBI to the Weaver family. 67.235.102.180 ( talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Ack! My un-refreshed page was showing me as logged in. Oops. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Entry: 07 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsabio ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I just read through this article for the first time, and, while it does still seem to retain some anti-government slant to it, this article has clearly come a long way from some of older text that I see being quoted here.
What bothers me is that there seems to be a period of time that is unaccounted for. Weaver was supposed to appear in court on 20 February, but I have it that his letter stated 20 March. Sounds like a misunderstanding that could have been sorted out without resorting to guns. But, in any event, it sounds like a misunderstanding that SHOULD have been sorted out by 20 March -- at which time Weaver would presumably have made his appearance in court. Yet the events that occurred at [what is now referred to as] Ruby Ridge occurred five months later -- 21 August 1992. There is nothing between 14 March and 21 August, except for references in the "Leadup" (sic) to Weaver refusing to leave his cabin and Federal Marshals planning to capture him. This section would benefit from a more explicit treatment of what did -- or, more likely, did not -- happen on 20 March 1992.
Another point that confused me: "Horiuchi took a second shot, which struck and wounded Harris, and killed Vicki Weaver." He did this with one bullet? Possible, I guess, but the article could benefit from some (minor) explication there.
Overall, the piece is still slanted. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to pass judgment, but to provide an unbiased accounting of the facts. For example, is it relevant to state that Vicki was holding her 10-month-old baby when she was shot and killed? Let's suppose that, when she was shot, she fell to the floor, and the baby suffered some sort of serious injury in the fall -- in that case, yes, it's relevant to include that information. But to simply include the fact of her holding the 10-month-old baby when she was shot smacks of an attempt to engage the reader emotionally, rather than a desire to objectively convey the relevant facts of the case.
I am also left wondering why, if there really was an error in the reassigned court date (upon which much of the accounting of the events is based), why was Weaver eventually convicted of missing his original court date? Or was it the 20 March date that he missed? I guess I've come full circle ... I need to know what is in that missing period of time.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsabio ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Where exact is/was the cabin? I am looking at Google Earth and I can't find it. Also, where does Randy Weaver live today? I'd venture a bet he's still in northern Idaho, and still nuttier than Woody Woodpecker. -- Ragemanchoo ( talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"A Justice Department review later found the second shot was unconstitutional" I wasn't aware that the Constitution had anything to say about how many shots a sniper is allowed to take. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 15:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The Ruby Ridge trial was one of the longest federal trials, with the longest jury deliberations up to that point. It would appear worthy of an article by itself: twice the federal judge fined the prosecution over exculpatory evidence withheld or not produced in a timely manner. Of the eighteen pages of the indictment, twelve were devoted to detailing the religious and political beliefs of the Weavers and four pages were devoted to detailing the criminal charges. Vicki Weaver although dead was charged as a co-conspirator.
The ten charges filed by the US Attorney Ron Howen on 19 Nov 1992 against the Weaver family were:
The disposition of charges by federal trial judge Edward Lodge and by the trial jury (Apr 1993) were:
Of ten charges against the Randy and Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris, the jury handed down six "Not Guilty" acquittals, the judge dismissed two charges based solely on prosecution evidence and set aside one conviction based on the jury's misunderstanding of the law. Randy Weaver was found guilty on only one charge: failure to appear in court on a gun charge that was dismissed as entrapment. Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
From Ruby Ridge: Report of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1995. transcript of testimony before the committee is referenced as (mo/day/yr Tr. at pagenum (affiant))
From Section A. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, subhead 5. Quality of Information About Weaver:
From Section B. United States Marshals Service, subhead 2. Information and Intelligence Gathering and Transmission:
Naaman Brown ( talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The article states the state manslaughter charges against Horiuchi were dismissed in federal court on the grounds of sovereign immunity. It says nothing about the dismissal being overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nor does it mention the actual reason the case was finally dismissed: a motion stating the State could not prove its case. These are critical facts that provide necessary context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.162.125 ( talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The WP article on Horiuchi goes into detail on the manslaughter charges, and I copy here since controversial subjects are often objects of vandalism or historical revisionism:
Wikisource Press_Release_Regarding_Charges_Filed_Against_Lon_Horiuchi: the DoJ press release on dismissal of charges includes the explanations "...federal prosecutors and Idaho prosecutors enforce different criminal laws, using different legal standards. .... In the state case, Idaho Boundary County prosecutor, Denise Woodbury, charged Horiuchi under Idaho's involuntary manslaughter statute, which makes it a crime to use a firearm recklessly, carelessly, or negligently. ... no federal crime covers the reckless, careless, or negligent use of a firearm. ... the available evidence did not support a federal criminal prosecution of Horiuchi. ... criminal investigation considered whether Agent Horiuchi violated federal civil rights law, and found that the critical element of willfulness necessary for a federal civil rights violation could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Such willfulness -- defined as knowing, intentional use of unreasonable force -- could not be made out against Horiuchi. ..."
The details of the dismissal of charges against Horiuchi are complicated, but devolve to the simple fact that federal agents could use lethal force under circumstances where a state, county or city policeman or deputy or a citizen acting in self-defense or defense others would be subject to criminal and/or civil action. See also the Little Bohemia Lodge FBI shooting. An American soldier under similar circumstances could be subject to war crimes charges. Before 1995 and the standardization of Use of Force by federal agencies, FBI standard Deadly Force Policy in 1992 did not include the qualifier "imminent" and the snipers on 22 Aug felt that the (mistaken) USMS HQ account of the 21 Aug shooting justified treating the Weavers as a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. The story that Site Commander Eugene Glenn and HRT Commander Dick Rogers learned from the DUSMs actually involved in the 21 Aug shooting (who were not consulted until the day after Sammy Weaver's body was discovered 23 Aug) changed their evaluation of the threat posed by the Weavers and prompted them to revoke the special Rules of Engagement (ROE) which actually violated the 1992 FBI Deadly Force policy. The officials who issued and approved the "can and should" ROE 1 and 2 were never held accountable.
The initial charge was dismissed by Judge Edward Lodge on the supremacy clause, the 9th circuit diagreed but the new county prosecutor had no desire to pursue the case, so nothing was resolved. Naaman Brown ( talk) 10:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have created this template Template:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action for use with articles like this that are in Category:Nonwar_armed_confrontations. It obviously is very simple, like Template:Infobox historical event which I modeled it on. Any critical information missing? It would be nice if others could help beef it up so the instructions could be more structured like Template:Infobox Military Conflict, Template:Infobox civilian attack or even Template:Infobox Militant organization. I'm going around to a few related pages. Please leave comments at Template_talk:Infobox_Law_Enforcement_Action. (Note: I came up with this because I wad disgusted with Military Info Box used in Waco Siege.)
{{Infobox Law Enforcement Action | Action_name = | Image_Name = | Image_Caption = | Also_known_ as = | Date = | Location = | Coordinates = | Purpose_of_Action = | Agencies_involved = | Target = | Coordinates = | Weapons/equipment = | Result = | Injuries = | Fatalities = | Followup investigations = | Notes = }}
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |