4 ms·

The author was raising huge red flags citing Waco Texas & Ruby Ridge as a reason to have government employees assassinated. That's the same rhethoric behind Ok

The author was raising huge red flags citing Waco Texas & Ruby Ridge as a reason to have government employees assassinated. That's the same rhethoric behind Oklahoma city bombing for those at home. It's the same sort of stochastic terrorists that end up in the QAnon hole these days. I don't know why we pay their talking points any attention.

coldtea 4y ago
Perhaps because reality doesn't stop existing if you don't pay attention to it. Nor do actual threats become any less threatening (if anything, the opposite). So not paying any attention to the talking points, i.e. not reading TFA, wont have any effect. Not to mention that the people "sane" enough head the advice and not read it, are the ones who wouldn't do anything shady even if they read it anyway...
HideousKojima 4y ago
Just because Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer doesn't mean the ATF and FBI agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco weren't murderers too. I realize who did what at Waco is highly disputed, but the rules of engagement being used at Ruby Ridge were straight up murder: "If any adult in the area around the cabin is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement had been made, deadly force could and should be used to neutralize the individual."
- chasd00 4y ago
  wasn't Randy Weaver's wife killed by a sniper with nothing but an infant in her arms? That's pretty bad.
- VHRanger 4y ago
  Waco and Ruby ridge were effectively the same. The end result of their actions was "How would you execute a warrant against El Chapo" and both forced the feds to act in such a way. There's an initial crime (sex with 12yr old for David Koresh, and selling illegal weaponry to white supremacist criminal orgs for Randy Weaver). Then they don't engage the legal system normally by hiring a lawyer and fighting the charges -- they hide in a hole hoping to be forgotten about. When the feds inevitably try to serve a warrant, in both cases they respond in a hostile manner and kill a LEO. At this point you can basically be expected to be treated like a drug lord -- you're facing charges and responding to warrants by killing officers. So you get besieged like a drug lord. The main difference for Ruby Ridge is that the government took a bunch of decisions (procedural mistakes, over-eager sniper and rules of engagement) that made them unsympathetic. But even with this, it's a little absurd to come out and defend the Weavers for playing very stupid games and winning stupid prizes. You kill a law enforcement office in a hostile manner, don't expect to be treated with courtesy. There's hundreds of cases where LEOs are recklessly killing innocents in manners that should get them lambasted, but Ruby Ridge ain't it.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >There's an initial crime (sex with 12yr old for David Koresh, and selling illegal weaponry to white supremacist criminal orgs for Randy Weaver). >Then they don't engage the legal system normally by hiring a lawyer and fighting the charges -- they hide in a hole hoping to be forgotten about. Weaver was acquitted on all charges, with the exception of a charge for failing to appear in court for the original charge that lead to the siege. And the rules of engagement still are and were murder.
    - VHRanger 4y ago
      The charge could have been unpaid parking tickets, it wouldn't change anything. The point is they had a charge and they failed to engage with the legal system like functional adults. You can fight the charge like any other. Instead they keep trying to evade the legal system and inevitably get someone knocking at the door. If your response to that knock on the door is to shoot, you get what's coming to you. The other point is that this unsympathetic case is viewed in some special light when there's a ton of cases where the government is much much more clearly in the wrong. The difference is that in those other cases it's generally a "them" (ethnic minorities, urban poor, etc.) whereas for libertarian weirdoes like Weaver they somehow get lumped in the HackerNews zeitgeist's "us".
      - tb_technical 4y ago
        "You get what's coming to you" is the language of fascists looking for an excuse to play with their new toy guns. They shot a kid in the back, and shot a woman holding a baby through a window. This case is a barometer for whether or not a person likes the taste of boot leather.
      - helloworld11 4y ago
        You truly are a disingenuous apologist for disgustingly murderous police tactics, which lacked all reasonable professionalism, duty to the basic idea of policing in a remotely free country or even loosely moral barometers. No, the correct response to the warrant being served against weaver wasn't to shoot his dog after secretly invading his property in tac gear and deliberately provoking a defensive response. No, the correct further axction is not to shoot his 14 year-old son in the back or to shoot through a window at a house in which you know a woman with a 10 month-old baby is standing. No normal notion of good legal procedure or even non-moronic, non-thuggish thinking can defend these and other acts. Even a number of police agree. Here's a claim from one of the U.S Marshalls on site: "Many of the people the USMS used as third party go-betweens on the Weaver case—Bill and Judy Grider, Alan Jeppeson, and Richard Butler—were assessed by the Marshals as more radical than the Weavers. When Deputy U.S. Marshal (DUSM) Dave Hunt asked Grider, "Why shouldn't I just go up there ... and talk to him?", Grider replied, "Let me put it to you this way. If I was sitting on my property and somebody with a gun comes to do me harm, then I'll probably shoot him." Or how about the deputy assistant director of the FBI at the time, writing in a memo that: "Something to Consider 1. Charge against Weaver is Bull S___. 2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting. 3. Vicki has no charges against her. 4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys [camouflage] shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting. He is in pretty strong legal position." As one of the comments above states: Let the reader decide what constitutes a reasonable attempt to serve a warrant".

coldtea 4y ago

Perhaps because reality doesn't stop existing if you don't pay attention to it. Nor do actual threats become any less threatening (if anything, the opposite). So not paying any attention to the talking points, i.e. not reading TFA, wont have any effect. Not to mention that the people "sane" enough head the advice and not read it, are the ones who wouldn't do anything shady even if they read it anyway...

HideousKojima 4y ago

Just because Timothy McVeigh was a mass murderer doesn't mean the ATF and FBI agents at Ruby Ridge and Waco weren't murderers too. I realize who did what at Waco is highly disputed, but the rules of engagement being used at Ruby Ridge were straight up murder: "If any adult in the area around the cabin is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement had been made, deadly force could and should be used to neutralize the individual."

chasd00 4y ago
wasn't Randy Weaver's wife killed by a sniper with nothing but an infant in her arms? That's pretty bad.
VHRanger 4y ago
Waco and Ruby ridge were effectively the same. The end result of their actions was "How would you execute a warrant against El Chapo" and both forced the feds to act in such a way. There's an initial crime (sex with 12yr old for David Koresh, and selling illegal weaponry to white supremacist criminal orgs for Randy Weaver). Then they don't engage the legal system normally by hiring a lawyer and fighting the charges -- they hide in a hole hoping to be forgotten about. When the feds inevitably try to serve a warrant, in both cases they respond in a hostile manner and kill a LEO. At this point you can basically be expected to be treated like a drug lord -- you're facing charges and responding to warrants by killing officers. So you get besieged like a drug lord. The main difference for Ruby Ridge is that the government took a bunch of decisions (procedural mistakes, over-eager sniper and rules of engagement) that made them unsympathetic. But even with this, it's a little absurd to come out and defend the Weavers for playing very stupid games and winning stupid prizes. You kill a law enforcement office in a hostile manner, don't expect to be treated with courtesy. There's hundreds of cases where LEOs are recklessly killing innocents in manners that should get them lambasted, but Ruby Ridge ain't it.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >There's an initial crime (sex with 12yr old for David Koresh, and selling illegal weaponry to white supremacist criminal orgs for Randy Weaver). >Then they don't engage the legal system normally by hiring a lawyer and fighting the charges -- they hide in a hole hoping to be forgotten about. Weaver was acquitted on all charges, with the exception of a charge for failing to appear in court for the original charge that lead to the siege. And the rules of engagement still are and were murder.
  - VHRanger 4y ago
    The charge could have been unpaid parking tickets, it wouldn't change anything. The point is they had a charge and they failed to engage with the legal system like functional adults. You can fight the charge like any other. Instead they keep trying to evade the legal system and inevitably get someone knocking at the door. If your response to that knock on the door is to shoot, you get what's coming to you. The other point is that this unsympathetic case is viewed in some special light when there's a ton of cases where the government is much much more clearly in the wrong. The difference is that in those other cases it's generally a "them" (ethnic minorities, urban poor, etc.) whereas for libertarian weirdoes like Weaver they somehow get lumped in the HackerNews zeitgeist's "us".
    - tb_technical 4y ago
      "You get what's coming to you" is the language of fascists looking for an excuse to play with their new toy guns. They shot a kid in the back, and shot a woman holding a baby through a window. This case is a barometer for whether or not a person likes the taste of boot leather.
    - helloworld11 4y ago
      You truly are a disingenuous apologist for disgustingly murderous police tactics, which lacked all reasonable professionalism, duty to the basic idea of policing in a remotely free country or even loosely moral barometers. No, the correct response to the warrant being served against weaver wasn't to shoot his dog after secretly invading his property in tac gear and deliberately provoking a defensive response. No, the correct further axction is not to shoot his 14 year-old son in the back or to shoot through a window at a house in which you know a woman with a 10 month-old baby is standing. No normal notion of good legal procedure or even non-moronic, non-thuggish thinking can defend these and other acts. Even a number of police agree. Here's a claim from one of the U.S Marshalls on site: "Many of the people the USMS used as third party go-betweens on the Weaver case—Bill and Judy Grider, Alan Jeppeson, and Richard Butler—were assessed by the Marshals as more radical than the Weavers. When Deputy U.S. Marshal (DUSM) Dave Hunt asked Grider, "Why shouldn't I just go up there ... and talk to him?", Grider replied, "Let me put it to you this way. If I was sitting on my property and somebody with a gun comes to do me harm, then I'll probably shoot him." Or how about the deputy assistant director of the FBI at the time, writing in a memo that: "Something to Consider 1. Charge against Weaver is Bull S___. 2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting. 3. Vicki has no charges against her. 4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys [camouflage] shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting. He is in pretty strong legal position." As one of the comments above states: Let the reader decide what constitutes a reasonable attempt to serve a warrant".