4 ms·

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 l

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".

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".