Talk:Ruby Ridge/Archive 1

Errors in Content Type and Major Changes Needed

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)

Except that a cited source claims the connection. Is there a veracity problem with CNN (the source of the claim)? Is the source not verifiable? Being that there is a cited reliable and verifiable source that claims the connection, the cited content should remain. Wikipedia is not censored. On the other hand, if another cited reliable and verifiable cource claims no connection, that content would be fine to add, too, representing another opinion. Yaf (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it does seem strange that the section mostly describes the Oklahoma City Bombing and only mentions the "connection(s)" in the last two sentences. Also, I don't know that it deserves its own section. I think it could be merged into the Aftermath section, or maybe another one. I don't see any problem with the source, though.--Hamitr (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for shootout

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 agree, I've read this and I didn't understand anything. 80% of the article is about a guy taking a shot at someone and hitting a woman behind the door. The same facts about it are repeated to fill space (and they are also in the article about the guy), while not much else is explained. I mean seriously, "the people" shot their dog? Isn't it known who the people were? Also, a child got shot in the back while running away and nobody cared, while everyone was up in arms about a woman accidentally getting shot through a door? The whole thing started for no reason at all? The article paints a very unbelievable picture of the events. Tapir (talk)

I've just reead the Randy Weaver article, and it has a much better description of the events. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I believe an article about the event is supposed to describe the event in detail, while the article about a person should have basic information, with a link to the more specific article. This one's the other way around, the article about the shooting doesn't say very much about the shooting, so you're supposed to click on the guy's name, which is non-intuitive, since you expect this article to be more detailed in that regard. Tapir (talk)

Quality of writing

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

And since when is being "not 'all there'" reason for the FBI to hunt and kill a family for failure to appear at a trial?Nolo Contendre 05:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. From a purely technical perspective, you're right as a symmetrically-inclined, overly-principled person. However please also take into account normative values: cracking down a vocal, racist nuthead (easy to justify and do) in a pluralistic society may give people reason to pay patronage to its gov't. Maybe? I think from a normative perspective, people could see this coming. You probably wrote this article didn't you? tsk... tsk... tsk... 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)

Wikipedia presents a completely neutral perspective, which this article doesn't represent. I read this article and clearly when a reference for: "Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while retreating" is the collected opinions of a biased journalist (Send in the Waco Killers -- Essays on the Freedom Movement), and the author of this wikipedia article often refers to Samuel Weaver as Sammy, some sense of prejudice against our government is impossible to ignore. Arming oneself illegally is the anchor that the 10,086 people murdered by firearms in the United States in 2007 could use to lobby for more firearm legislation, if they were alive. The author of this article claims the rules of engagement the FBI used was contradictory to the standard FBI ROE, this doesn't follow: "Agents are not to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Whenever feasible, verbal warning should be given before deadly force is applied." Under these conditions killing one who has previously acted violently or have attempted to harm anyone is reasonable, particularly if verbal warnings had already proved useless, and the loss of an agent had already occurred. Also, anyone who would exclusively criticize the US marshals for killing Samuel Weaver should consider the immorality of using your 14 year old son as a soldier, arming him and training him in the use of a firearm (something far more immoral than responding to a illegal firearms dispute to my intuition). All other facts aside, this article is biased, and a less-skeptical person than I could be influenced towards a the "radical perspective" of sympathy for a racist scum-bag with no regard for the rights of others. On wikipedia this is unacceptable: without standards wikis can't function. Who would believe an encyclopedia who would accept opinion as fact: "I could offer the opinion that soil is air, does claiming this make it true?" Our government is elected by the people, (scarily enough, even you silly aryans can elect representatives) so the departments of that government ATF, FBI, US marshals etc. are really representing the majority view of application of law. If you disagree with the way the democratically elected government goes about business, move to another country, lobby government, or shut up. Don't stockpile arms so as to force others towards your ignorant perspective: it makes you look like an idiotic fundamentalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesanderson85 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The US Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsiblity Ruby Ridge Task Force Report 10 Jun 1994 and a 1995 Senate subcommittee hearing declared the Ruby Ridge Rules unconstitutional use of force. Don Kusulas of the Denver FBI SWAT team at Ruby Ridge decided the ROE "were crazy" and the Denver SWAT decided to ignore them. The OPR Report refers to the Weaver son as "Sammy" several dozen times in its 520 pages and only twice calls him "Samuel". The Senate report refers to "Sammy" dozens of times and calles him "Samuel" just once. I just reported their determination and usage. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only did the government reports show "prejudice against our government" by consistently calling Weaver's son "Sammy", but furthermore, on 8 June 1993 at the Weaver/Harris trial, the prosecution ballistic expert Martin Fackler testified that Sammy Weaver was shot through the back by DUSM Larry Cooper. By all accounts looking at the evidence (Gerry Spence, Jess Walter, Alan Bock, the DOJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force, and Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism Technology and Government Information) Sammy Weaver was shot in the back. Scarcely an opinion accepted as fact. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I do not doubt the methods used by the FBI and US Marshal service were extreme, illegal and very immoral, nor doubt that they did in fact kill 'Sammy' Weaver through a shot to the back, I disagree where the author uses: "Accounts differ at this point as to who first opened fire[25] but agree that DUSM Roderick shot and killed Weaver's dog and that Samuel Weaver fired at Roderick. Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while retreating,[26] and DUSM Degan was shot and killed by Harris.[27]" where reference 26 is: ([26] 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. 291.) This is unacceptable citation. I could not nor did not want to pursue or read this particular piece of literature, however the title and what little I did research showed it to be the collected opinions of a right wing lobbyist and author (Famed for a 'New Hampshire Libertarian Migration'). Also, using the government evidence for these facts would have been infinitely more convincing. I do not feel that I should have to, nor do I even have the time to edit this entire page or other similarly biased pages of wikipedia to maintain the neutral perspective of wikipedia. Although I realize that this process of discussion is absolutely necessary for the continuing function and neutrality of Wikipedia, and that no perspective will be completely unbiased, I am simply putting forth my liberal little piece: This article disproportionately criticizes the government while maintaining the innocence of an insane illegal-arms dealer.Jamesanderson85 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary verbiage. "Cracking down a vocal, racist nuthead in a pluralistic society may give people reason to pay patronage to its gov't." It may. What is the point being made here? And where is the evidence for "bias" in the article? Let me point out that the article does not promote a conspiracy theory, but merely, presumably the ineptness of the government agencies in handling the matter.The Gnome 01:22, 3 March 2007 (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)

• This article can use some loving care... came here from 'Kent State shootings', and the contrast is immense. Note that I'm a foreigner who has never heard about either incident before reading here.

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]

• :"The canine gave chase. The DUSM shot at the pursuing dog in self-defense, and, in the ensuing exchange of gunfire, accidentally injured Weaver’s son."

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

• I do agree with your "which is the point of surveillance" but can you cite that the dog actually manage to attack the agent? I think the dog got shot before he had a chance. Also, WTF is up with the "Randy Weaver had instilled in his son a deep mistrust for the Federal government, and was considered by many an anti-government extremist." is this NPOV?

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)

From where can you prove 'Striker' "barked" at them? This is inconsistent with the evidence you put forth (Unless dogs bark out their arses as-well). Also the testimony of the US Marshals affirms that they were completely unaware of 'Sammy's' death until they found his corpse in the Weaver's shed after Randy Weaver's arrest. The Marshals do not 'spin' the gunfight as accidental, but provoked by the armed pair Harris and Sammy. You can legally justify self-defense, else Weaver and Harris would still be in prison. The spin that you and the (original/biased) author of this article (assuming they are separate) attempt to put on this story, along with the attitude behind Weaver's actions will keep the liberal population in constant fear and contempt for the militant members of American society that maintain this 'stigma of violence' that all Americans must share. I personally wish rid of it, and support strict government response to violent crime - and the suppliers of the means to engage in violent crime. Jamesanderson85 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(a) I cannot prove the dog barked (which would require WP:OR) but there is WP:V WP:RS (the OPR report) that is what the three witnesses stated. The account of the "Y" given in the DoJ OPR report cites FD302 interviews of DUSMs Art Roderick and Larry Cooper and Kevin Harris' 25 Aug 1992 written statement: Cooper and Harris both described the dog running up to Cooper and "dancing" or leaping around him barking and Roderick said the dog growled at him before he shot it in the arse.

(b) The "Y" shooting occurred 21 Aug 1992. Sammy's body was discovered by FBI (not the USMS) in a search of the birthing shed 23 Aug. Harris surrendered 30 Aug. Randy surrendered and was arrested 31 Aug. The OPR report (available through Lexis Counsel Connect) has an uncontested timeline in the appendix, which ought to be required reading for commentary on this article.

(b) Cooper consistently stated he shot a man he believed to be Harris and saw him fall "like a sack of potatoes". Cooper told DUSM Dave Hunt he believed he wounded or killed Harris and saw Sammy run away. However, Cooper's description of the order Sammy and Harris came out of the woods following the dog and his description of their clothes and guns showed he had Sammy and Harris confused. The claim the marshals accidentally shot Sammy is as wrong as the defense claim that they "knowingly" shot Sammy. The marshals knew they had shot someone: they just had the identity mixed up.

(d) For the record, I am not the original author. Like all WP articles this is a collaborative effort owned by no one.

(e) Senator Dianne Feinstein (Dem-CA) was on the subcommittee that held hearings on Ruby Ridge. Feinstein, an anti-gun liberal if there ever was one, stated that Weaver was not the major illegal gun dealer she wished the ATF to target (I watched the hearings on CSPAN). Weaver had shown no propensity to sell weapons legal or illegal before encountering ATF undercover agent Magisono/Fadeley and the trial jury acquitted Weaver of the gun trafficking charge when the only defense was entrapment.

(e) The stigma of violence started with Cain and Abel, not America, and signing off on strict government response out of fear or ideological contempt (Little Bohemia Lodge, Kent State, MOVE, Ruby Ridge, Waco) is part of the problem, not the solution (see: Team America: World Police). Naaman Brown (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge Song

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

Laws re. legality of modified weapons

• From what I can find, there is no law against shortening the buttstock of a shotgun. However, there is a LAW against shortening the barrel. That needs to be cleared up and I intend on doing so.

• I slightly changed the sawed off shotgun section, as a source, I used the court TV link at the bottom

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html?sect=18 66.173.192.96

• Shortening the barrel of a shotgun below 18 inches declassifies it as a shotgun and then reclassifies it as "Any Other Weapon" by the National Firearms act of 1934. This requires you to be put into a national registry for Class III weapons, equal to owning a machine gun. It also requires you to pay for an extensive background investigation and transfers fees.

• There are two length limits on shotguns: barrel must be 18" or longer and overall length must be 26" or longer. Actually an AOW is factory-made as a shotgun pistol; a fullsize shotgun sawn off by an individual is always a SBS short barrel shotgun. A point I would like to make is that the ATF informant Gus Magisono saw the Model 870 shotgun before it was altered and pointed out where he wanted Weaver to cut it. Since Weaver had no history of making and selling illegal weapons, the jury saw this as entrapment.Naaman Brown 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Revisit and summarize: if shortening a buttstock makes a shotgun under 26" it is an NFA Title II SBS short barrel shotgun regardless of barrel length. If the overall length is 26" or greater and the barrel length is 18" or greater, it is still a GCA Title I shotgun. Selling a Title II firearm requires a Class 3 dealer license; there are no Class III firearms, there is a Class 3 license to deal in Title II firearms. An "AOW" is a firearm originally manufactured as a concealable weapon other than a conventional handgun revolver or pistol, the name (implied) "Any Other (concealable) Weapon". Shortening a shotgun barrel under 18" classifies it as an SBS ($200 transfer tax), never as an AOW ($5 transfer tax). Naaman Brown (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ruby Ridge"?

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)

• Well, now that the media's created it, there is a Ruby Ridge. =P Other than that...make a note of that in the article, no? [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 22:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A study of the United States Geologic Survey quad, Naples(ID),shows "Ruby Ridge" between Molar Creek and Ruby Creek (which is south of Caribou Ridge)at Longitude 53 degrees 81 minutes 45 seconds East, Latitude 53degrees 85 min 64 sec North. Nolo Contendre 05:48, 24 December 2006 (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)

• I checked Microsoft Terraserver and the topographical map shows west of Bonner's Ferry Idaho (at approx Long. 116 W Lat. 48 N) a series of ridges divided by creeks: -Snow Ridge -Caribou Creek -Caribou Ridge -Ruby Creek -Ruby Ridge -Molar Creek. So Ruby Ridge is a valid placename (the earlier poster had the Long and Lat wrong). Another source left me with the impression that Caribou Ridge and Ruby Ridge have swapped names over the years, also. Some sources place the Weaver cabin on Ruby Ridge and others place it on Caribou Ridge. (The topo map was dated 1983.)Naaman Brown 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Horiuchi and Vicki Weaver

• "tactical assault on the Weaver compound" -- Why not replace compound with "house."

• Thweat, the 9th Circuit Court decision discusses the physical evidence which proves Horiuchi could not see Vicki Weaver. It's been linked on page for quite some time, and you should read it carefully. Horiuchi has never changed his story regarding his shot being intended for the adult male running toward the open door of the cabin. Further, the FBI obviously did not have access to the inside of the cabin after the shooting, so there was no way to know Vicki had been shot. Also your claims about "sniper procedures" are mere speculation.

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.

---

• Horiuchi was negligent in not considering his backdrop- in other words, he didn't take into consideration where his bullet would go if he missed. This is improper gun handling, and certainly not something you expect from a trained sniper. And that's not even getting into the fact he was attempting to shoot someone in the back to begin with, generally considered a cowardly act.

• The FBI had to have known that Vicky was dead. In the meantime, the FBI sent agents who crawled under the house and stuck listening devices under the floor. And although Randy many times screamed out to the officers that they had killed his wife, the officers pretended they did not know she was dead, and they mercilessly taunted the family. "Did you sleep well last night, Vicki?" and "Show us the baby, Vicki? We had pancakes," and on it went. (www.Ruby-ridge.com) AND, if you don't like that, try http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/16.html : As soon as the lights illuminated the cabin, Randy yelled out the door, “You killed my f--king wife!” Elisheba then began crying out, “Mama, Mama.” ... The psychological warfare became even worse the following day. “Good morning Mrs. Weaver,” Fred Lanceley, an FBI negotiator, called out. “We had pancakes this morning. And what did you have for breakfast? Why don't you send your children out for some pancakes, Mrs. Weaver?” Following the statements made by the negotiator, the whole family began sobbing loudly. ... Following his statements, the robot retreated and a negotiator began speaking again, “Vicki, how's the baby?” he said. “Let me know if there is anything that can be done for the baby.”

• Regardless of Horiuchi's intentions, he is responsible for Vicki's death and should be held accountable. A sniper is responsible for the bullet's trajectory from the pull of the trigger to the end of its path. Horiuchi made a lethal mistake and should be punished.

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)

• "Compound"-- According to Marshal Cooper at the Weaver/Harris trial, just hanging a rifle on the mantelpiece converts a homestead into a "compound." Militarily speaking, a "compound" implies extensive fortifications. The Weaver cabin was described by Vicki's dad as a "plywood mess." The walls could easily be penetrated by even a .22 rimfire rifle. The only "fortifications" at the cabin were natural features: the steep hillsides, trees and boulders.Naaman Brown 05:45, 26 August 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)

Penalty

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.

As I recall, the NFA tax isn't $5, it's $200. 71.203.209.0 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• NFA tax on a factory-made shotgun pistol or AOW is $5; the NFA tax on a sawed-off shotgun is $200. Weaver made the two sawed-off guns in Oct 1989. Jun 1990 the ATF offered Weaver a deal: go undercover for the ATF or go to jail. He refused. Then they pressed charges. It seems to me his real offense to ATF was refusing to snitch, not sawing off two shotguns.Naaman Brown 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

latest edit

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 still reads heavily of politics and needs much revision. I will add what I can. Humble Servant 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

NPOV

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.

• Some date RR back to the "infamous" April 19, referring to an aborted/cancelled raid.[1]

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?

• I can't believe how skewed this article still is. Doesn't the government claim that the group didn't leave the house to "go hunting," that in fact they were guarding the property and had been coming out of the house with weapons periodically during the night whenever the dogs barked? Further, doesn't the government claim that they were chased from the house by the armed group and that a gunfight occurred when the agents stopped and took up defensive positions? Why isn't the governments position outlined here? I'm not familiar enough with Widipedia to go editing the page, I thought I would ask this here first.

---

• ^^go for it, it's easy to revert. This thing needs some work

• Would it matter if they were out there defending their own property? That's legal.

• I changed the events paragraph to reflect the real dispute over the shooting at the Y. The disputed facts as far as I can tell are who fired first and when did the marshals identify themselves.

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)

I would imagine it is because it seems more like a supporting fact to an argument or debate point rather than a fact that informs someone of the events.

Garden Stater 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very encyclopedic. 69.40.243.205 01:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-Introduced NPOV

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

NPOV and Unsourced statements are two different things, deserving of different tags. By all means, be bold and feel free to cite some of the unsourced claims. But I think changing the tag would be appropriate. Thanks Dubc0724 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The next day, an FBI sniper named Lon Horiuchi shot and wounded Weaver while Weaver, Harris, and Weaver's 16-year-old daughter Sara were outside, attempting to visit the dead body of Sam Weaver, which was placed in a shed after being recovered by the family the previous day. Weaver was shot from behind as he went to lift the latch of the shed. Then as Randy, Sara and Harris ran back to the house, Horiuchi fired again in an attempt to shoot Kevin Harris. Weaver's wife Vicki was holding the door open, and the shot went through the open door of the cabin, hitting her in the head and killing her, the bullet continued on to hit Harris, who was wounded. Vicki Weaver was holding her 10 month old baby Elishiba in her arms when she was killed. The next day, an armoured personnel carrier came to the cabin and announced the presence of law enforcement. According to the Weavers, this was the first formal announcement of the presence of law enforcement.

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)

Could you please state in your POV what parts of the above paragraph are a "white-wash of the facts" so that they can be addressed. Rearden9 14:01, 9 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

Weaver isn't a saint in this either. His own actions only exacerbated the situation. He knew that he was supposed to show up to court to face charges. And even if the charges were bogus, Mr. Weaver and his family should have shown up in court and made their case just like every other citizen has to do when the government wrongly charges them with a crime. Instead of showing up and defending himself in court, the Weavers chose to arm themselves to the hilt and resist Randy's eventual arrest, which was lawfully ordered by a Judge.

Um, have you even read the article? They were given a WRONG COURT DATE, and before the court date they were given had passed, the govt. issued warrants for them. Example: Someone needs to be in court on Monday, but they are told to show up Friday. Then the court (knowing they were told the wrong day!) issues an arrest warrant for Failure To Appear on Wednesday.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Now of course the gov't made a number of mistakes, as our gov't is often prone to do, but the problems at Ruby Ridge were made much worse by the way the Weaver's handled the situation.

And of course, if you have information and claims to add that come from reputable, verifiable sources, then feel free to add those claims to the article. Vivaldi (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The court date was originally 19 Feb 1991; it was moved to 20 Feb 1991. Pre-Trial Services notified Weaver that the new date was 20 Mar. The ATF had a representative in Judge Harold Ryan's court on 19 Feb and 20 Feb. The judge issued a bench warrant for Weaver's arrest for "failure to appear." Weaver's court appointed attorney informed the court that Weaver had rejected his services. The court found out that Weaver had received a wrong date by 27 Feb. Marshals Dave Hunt and Ron Evans wanted the prosecution to allow Weaver to show up on 20 Mar. Prosecutor Ron Howen responded by seeking a grand jury indictment on 14 Mar, cutting off the chance that Weaver would show up on 20 Mar to answer the bench warrant. The grand jury indictment covered the same charge as the bench warrant, failure to appear, but the indictment would stand even if Judge Ryan dismissed the bench warrant. Before 14 Mar, the marshals dealt with Weaver and Judge Ryan and seemed to be making some progress; after the grand jury indictment, the marshals had to report to prosecutor Howen, not to judge Ryan, and progress stopped. Weaver was willing to deal with Marshal Hunt through third parties, but Howen cut that off. Certainly, Weaver could have shown in court 20 Mar with the PreTrial Services notice, but Weaver had no faith in receiving fair treatment. The Weavers, paricularly Vicki, were stubborn and unreasonable, but so was Ron Howen.Naaman Brown 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag and sources tag

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)

I would like to add that EMINENT DOMAIN which is the government's desire to take property and these days WITHOUT PAYMENT (or a greatly reduced price of less than 25% of it's real worth) and sell it to developers of homes and businesses, was the initial cause of this tragedy. The fact that the under educated and blinded public and the government thinks it is okay to commit theft of family homes, shows the junk values that have contributed to the moral atrophy in the United States. The Weavers had the Constitutional right to defend their lives and property "against tryranny."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.233 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 May 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)

June 2007

"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)

Excellent point. Exactly right. I've edited the article accordingly, but it still has lots of other problems.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to report statements by reliable sources, not speculation and innuendo. This article needs another cleanup.

One problem is the lack of good sources. At present, the main source we use is www.crimelibrary.com, and I'm not sure fact-checking is their highest priority. (They say here that "Many Crime Library stories are based on third party sources: books, magazine and newspaper articles and interviews. From time to time, inaccuracies in source materials may inadvertently be incorporated into a Crime Library story." Hey, they're almost as bad as Wikipedia ...) Ideally, someone would read the books, decide which books they trusted, and then rewrite the article. One good move would be to use sentences like "Bock (p. 123) reports that the Mr Jones did X" instead of "Jones did X".

Cheers, CWC 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources? This isn't an obscure, underreported event. There was a great deal of reporting on what happened. While the possibility of the media reports getting things wrong obviously exists, citing them to support the statements in the article is obviously better than using unsourced speculation (which all too often is POV-biased). — Red XIV ^(talk) 10:25, 30 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 Senate Judiciary Committee cited the (unpublished) Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Bermann Commission Task Force Report on Ruby Ridge as the best source available. A slightly redacted version was posted by Lexis Connect, an information service for lawyers. Jesse Walter's Every Knee Shall Bow (reprinted as simply Ruby Ridge) has also stood up well.Naaman Brown 06:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lexis Counsel Connect is the proper search name for Lexis Connect. 67.235.102.180 (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for renewed interest?

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

From user:76.23.61.27

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)

While attending a meeting after Ruby Ridge in Provo Utah approximately one year after the Ruby Ridge encounter with Bo Gritz as the main speaker for the John Birch Society sponsored event Bo Gritz claimed that "when I appeared at the Weaver cabin the government was in the process of placing a satchel charge on top of the cabin in order to remove all evidence".

This statement was heard by myself and a large number of John Birch society members.

This has been a number of years and I am unsure as to why this fact never came out to the public. I was a young man in my twenties at the time, recently out of the military. I have always wondered whether it was a true report or an attempt by Bo Gritz to enlarge his position as negotiator or simple puffing in front of a crowd of listners.

Several other facts that were prominent in the media at the time have not been mentioned here as well such as the duplicity of law enforcement and the further cover up and shredding of documents reported by the news media at the time.

News media at the time up to and including Rush Limbaugh on his syndicated show mentioned that there was a clear view of Vicky Weaver through the sniper's scope when she was shot. Other media reported that she was passing in front of a window when shot and not standing behind the door as mentioned here.

With the government cover up and lack of accountability by the murderous sniper I doubt that we shall ever know the complete truth. Much of the history of Ruby Ridge appears to be conjecture after the fact.

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)

Strict orders to avoid contact with weaver family?

Were there any such orders? Could references to these orders be cited? -TazerPolice 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From the Department of Justice report: Roderick briefed the team on Wednesday evening, August 19. At that time, he repeated the standing orders from Marshals Service Headquarters that they were to avoid contact with the Weavers, particularly the children.[FN308]12.110.196.19 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

IfD discussion on image of book

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)

Oops=

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)

Commentary regarding controversy

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)

• (A)The internal federal report says that Deputy US Marshal Larry Cooper "held the dog at bay with his firearm..." Kevin Harris says the dog ran up to the first marshal, who has been clearly identified as Cooper, and danced barking as he did at play; then, the dog ran to a second marshal, who has been clearly identified later as DUSM Art Roderick: according to Roderick, Kevin Harris and the prosecution's ballistic expert Martin Fackler, Art Roderick shot the dog in the rear and killed it in front of Sammy Weaver who then fired at Roderick. That Larry Cooper held fire to avoid starting a firefight is commendable, but does not change the fact that Roderick shot the dog, precipitating what Cooper had tried to avoid. (B)US Marshals were not serving a warrant 21 Aug 1992: they were conducting a surveillance mission with orders to avoid contact. The warrant itself was for failure to appear in court 20 Feb 1991 on a gun charge filed by ATF June 1990 after Weaver refused to become a snitch. The 1985 claim that Weaver had threatened President Reagan was investigated, found by the US Secret Service to be baseless in 1985, and Weaver was not charged and there sure as heck was no warrant against Weaver for "threats against the President and other government and law enforcement officials" on Aug 1992.Naaman Brown (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

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)

Have attempted to address these concerns, adding citations, and cleaning up the text. Yaf (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Edits and Arguements to Re-Introduce NPOV

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)

With reliable and verifiable sources, many of these changes should be made, assuming they hold up to scrutiny. It was, however, a "violent" confrontation. I see no reason to dispute this. As for the information contained in quotes in the article, they are direct quotes from Suprynowicz's book. There is no reason to remove these quotes unless there are conflicting sources claiming otherwise, in which case we need to determine which are reliable vs. non-reliable and verifiable vs. non-verifiable, regarding sources. I have no objection to tagging the article as POV, if there are reliable sources that indicate that the information contained herein is not neutral.Yaf (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally support those 14 changes, and I agree that it was 'violent' and wonder if there might be a more neutral word that says the same thing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the incident was "violent" as well, so I somewhat retract that edit. It would be nice to have a conversation about whether a more neutral word exists or needs to be used, however.

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))

I reverted the article back to remove the last two sentences that I had pointed out which had no reference. I also tagged the article. Please comment on my 15 points above and for those that have an "OR" in them, discuss which you feel would be the best option. (Mcpaine (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

All controversial statements should have cites by reliable and verifiable sources. Otherwise, they should go. On the other hand, statements that meet Wikipedia requirements regarding having to have reliable and verifiable sources should probably stay, despite perhaps not being as "bland" as some would prefer. I think it fair to say that this was a "violent" confrontation. As for the description of the Vietnam style camouflauge, that is precisely what is in Suprynowicz's book. Nonetheless, I would find it hard to believe that desert style camouflauge was being used on Ruby Ridge, so the Vietnam style description is not obviously inaccurate. It would be original research to claim that this description was somehow POV, as it is simply what Suprynowicz's text describes it as being. And, it is cited. Yaf (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war 28 March 2008

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)

Article structure

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)

Acronyms

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)

Prompting a crime?

It's called,"Entrapment"! I've read the paragraph,

In October 1989, an informant from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms visited Weaver and requested that he supply him two shotguns, with the barrels shortened beyond the legal limit (for short-barreled shotguns without a tax paid to the BATF). Weaver sold him two shotguns with barrels sawn down to under the legal limit. In June 1990, BATF agents attempted to have Weaver act as an informant for their investigation into the Aryan Nations organization. He refused. Seven months later in January 1991, they laid charges over the illegally shortened shotguns.

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:

• Contracting a murder just to catch the murderer
• Planning a terrorist attack just to catch the terrorists
• Soliciting just to catch patrons, in jurisdictions where paying for sex is illegal
• Dropping a wallet just to catch a thief

Just asking... – Tintazul ^msg 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to get too off-topic, but just to clarify: the US law against shortening shotguns without paying a $200 tax isn't intended to prevent any general danger involved in modifying firearms (you can modify your guns all you want in the US--with a few very specific exceptions); it's intended to prevent you from making a shotgun more concealable. Back when the law was passed in the 1930s, people were terrified of gangsters with sawed-off shotguns; the law was an attempt to allay those fears. The result, incidentally, is a confusing mess. As written, you need to know the provenance of a given shotgun: some shotguns ship from the factory with two handles (one traditional handle with stock and one stockless pistol grip), and the handle that happened to be attached to a particular gun when you opened the box dictates what modifications you can make. You can't put a stock on a pistol (and in some cases, the ATF has determined that _owning_ a removable stock for a gun with interchangeable barrels can indicate "intent" to make a stocked handgun). And you need to measure the barrel length from the closed (internal) bolt, which requires putting a dowel down the barrel, marking the dowel at the gun's muzzle, using that dowel to mark the outside of the barrel, and measuring the legal length from that mark. It isn't at all surprising that a non-lawyer could be led to break a law this needlessly complex. Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:18, 9 October 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.

• Alan W. Bock, Ambush at Ruby Ridge, Dickens Press (1995), Berkley (1996).
• Jess Walter, Every Knee Shall Bow, HarperCollins (1995), 2nd ed. re-titled Ruby Ridge.
• Randy & Sara Weaver, The Federal Siege at Ruby Ridge, Ruby Ridge Inc. (1998).
• Ruby Ridge: Report of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1995).
• DoJ OPR Report, Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, Berman Commission Ruby Ridge Task Force Report (1993) source: Lexis Counsel Connect, American Lawyer Media.

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)

Missing Chunk of Time

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)

Hi Vsabio. I tried to improve the article a while back and I agree it needs a lot more work. I'll try to do a little research next week to see what happened during that time, but I did want to point out that yes, indeed, the sniper did hit Harris and Vicki Weaver with the same bullet. Also, to me, saying she was holding the baby is just reporting facts. The article doesn't pass judgement on the sniper for accidentally hitting her while she was holding the kid; it just reports that she was holding the baby when she was killed. Maybe a little more clarification couldn't hurt. I'll work on it next week. Tex (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cabin location?

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)

Unconstitutional?

"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)

Good point. I removed it, but you could have done it yourself if you wanted to... Tex (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Senate Subommittee Report on Ruby Ridge (1995): Following the conclusion of the Weaver/Harris trial, the Department of Justice created a "Ruby Ridge Task Force" to investigate these allegations. On June 10, 1994, the Task Force delivered its 542-page report to the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility ....

DoJ OPR Ruby Ridge Task Force Report, I. Executive Summary, B. Significant findings: With regard to the two shots fired on August 22, we concluded that the first shot met the standard of "objective reasonableness" the Constitution requires for the legal use of deadly force but that the second shot did not satisfy that standard.

Please read sources before removing material citing those sources. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Constitutional test applied to the first shot and second shot by the Ruby Ridge Task Force was the "objective reasonableness" of the sniper's belief (mistaken or not) that lethal force was necessary. Furthermore, on June 11, 1993, day 38 of the trial, Federal Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the charge, Count 6, that Randy Weaver endangered agents in the FBI helicopter: USMS Duke Smith had testified the helicopter was not where the sniper believed it was and Smith, FBI HRT Dick Rogers and the pilot had testified that they were under no sense of threat from Weaver during the flight. The helicopter pilot had also stated he maneuvered to avoid being in line of fire of the cabin and had not been fired upon in five previous flights that day. Judge Lodge also believed that sniper Lon Horiuchi believed the helicopter was north of the cabin (it was not: it was south of the cabin in Ruby Creek canyon) and that sniper Horiuchi believed that Weaver was a threat to the helicopter (Weaver was not aware of the helicopter) so the first shot was based on a reasonable (but mistaken) belief that Weaver was a threat to the helicopter. In fact, both shots were unncessary, even if the first shot met the test of reasonable belief. Horiuchi's belief that a helicopter was at risk was simply mistaken. On the second shot, there was no objective reasonableness to believe that lethal force was necessary to stop Kevin Harris from running away. Neither Harris nor Weaver fired a single shot that day: all the shooting was by the FBI sniper and it was unnecessary. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

the trial

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:

• 1. Randy Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris: Conspiracy against the federal government
• 2. Randy Weaver: Illegal firearms (the two sawed-off shotguns).
• 3. Randy Weaver: Failure to appear in court 20 Feb 1991.
• 4. Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, Sammy Weaver: assault on federal officers.
• 5. Kevin Harris aided and abetted by Randy Weaver and Vicki Weaver: Murder of Marshal William Degan.
• 6. Randy Weaver: Endangering federal agents in a helicopter.
• 7. Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris: Harboring the fugitive Randy Weaver at the Weavers' home where Kevin Harris was a guest.
• 8. Randy Weaver aided and abetted by Vicki Weaver and Kevin Harris: Possession of firearms by a federal fugitive.
• 9. Randy Weaver: Committing crimes while on pretrial release.
• 10. Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris: Use of firearms in violent crime.

The disposition of charges by federal trial judge Edward Lodge and by the trial jury (Apr 1993) were:

• 1. Acquitted ("Not Guilty") by jury.
• 2. Acquitted by jury (possible defense: entrapment).
• 3. Convicted ("Guilty") by jury (Weaver should have appeared in court 20 Mar 1991, the date given him)
• 4. Acquitted by jury (possible defense: self-defense against unlawful use of force)
• 5. Acquitted by jury (only possible defense: self-defense after Sammy shot by Degan)
• 6. Dismissed by judge: helicopter was not where sniper thought it was and was not in danger.
• 7. Acquitted by jury.
• 8. Dismissed by judge: law states to be a crime, fugitive must cross a state line with a firearm.
• 9. Convicted by jury but Set aside by judge: all the "crimes" specified had been either been dismissed by judge or acquitted by jury.
• 10. Acquitted by jury (all charges of "violent crimes" were acquitted or dismissed)

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)

Quality of evidence against the Weavers

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:

A theme that emerged repeatedly during these hearings related to the proliferation of false information concerning the activities of Randy Weaver and his family. This started with ATF. We examined evidence and heard testimony that ATF provided the United States Attorney's Office and the Marshals Service with inaccurate information about the danger Weaver posed to law enforcement personnel or to others.

There were three major pieces of inaccurate information that the ATF case agent passed on to the United States Attorney's office or the Marshals Service. First, ATF agent Byerly misinformed the USAO that Weaver was "considered to be active in white supremacy activities and has been convicted of activities." (9/7/95 Tr. at 42-45 (Byerly)). Weaver had not been convicted--or even arrested for any crime before he came in contact with the ATF informant. Although Byerly testified that he thought the USAO was aware that Weaver was not a convicted felon, he never took any action to be sure that the USAO was informed that this information was inaccurate.

Second, there is evidence that Byerly informed the USAO that Weaver was a suspect in several bank robberies. Byerly conceded that there is a "possibility" that he did give this information to the USAO. (9/7/95 Tr. at 104-05 (Byerly)). In a memorandum from Chief Deputy Marshal Ron Evans to Chief of Enforcement Operators Tony Perez, Evans stated that the ATF case agent (Byerly) told the AUSA (Assistent US Attorney) that Weaver was a suspect in several bank robberies. In addition, Byerly wrote in a report of investigation that "Weaver could be a suspect in several bank robberies in Spokane." This was wholly unfounded; Weaver was not a suspect in any bank robberies.

Third, Agent Byerly or another ATF agent informed the Marshals that Weaver had the potential to be another Bob Mathews--Mathews was an extremely violent man who had killed, bombed and robbed--and his home another Whidbey Island standoff. (9/7/95 Tr. at 79-80 (Byerly); 9/8/95 Tr. at 155 (Magaw)). Weaver had done none of these things. Of course, federal agents need to be aware of and cautious about potential threats. Nevertheless, in this case, the Mathews analogy was extreme and inaccurate. It was this type of incorrect information and exaggeration that may have led to the decision to seek Weaver's prosecution on the gun charges in the first place. It also may have influenced agencies, like the FBI and the Marshals Service, to overreact to the situation they were later to face--with deadly and tragic results.

From Section B. United States Marshals Service, subhead 2. Information and Intelligence Gathering and Transmission:

Through negotiation efforts and contacts both with ATF agents familiar with the Weaver case and with friends, family, and neighbors of the Weavers, the Marshals came to accept a portrait of Randy Weaver and his family composed variously of fact, falsehood, misinterpretation and exaggeration. By late 1991, the Marshals believed that:

• The area surrounding Weaver's home might be booby-trapped with various weapons and explosives and outfitted with tunnels or bunkers. (9/12/95 Tr. at 55 (Johnson)). This theory was based in part on what proved to be an exaggerated account of Weaver's military record and in part on uncorroborated reports from "associates" of the Weavers. (Neither bunkers nor booby-traps existed on his property.)

• Weaver might be growing marijuana on his property as a source of income. Most of the information the Marshals actually received on this issue indicated that Weaver's income--to the extent he had any--derived from other sources and that he was, in fact, adamantly opposed to drugs and drug use. However, based on this hypothesis, the Marshals Service was able to commission an army helicopter to conduct surveillance of the property. (9/12/95 Tr. at 94-95 (Johnson)).

• Weaver was strongly affiliated with virulent anti-government, right-wing supremacist individuals and organizations. In fact, according to a later FBI report, Weaver was affiliated with Aryan Nations only "in some limited capacity."

• Weaver had made threats on the life of the President of the United States and other political leaders. (9/12/95 Tr. at 52 (Hudson)). The United States Secret Service investigated this allegation in 1985. However, in the face of Weaver's denial, they filed no charges against him, citing "lack of probable cause." (Task Force Report at 25; USMS 2/20/91 Report of Investigation).

• Weaver was a convicted felon and a suspect in several bank robbery cases, and was considered dangerous. Weaver also associated with a known bank robber. (9/12/95 Tr. at 51, 89-90 (Hudson)). These robberies were thought to finance white supremacist organizations, for example through the purchase of land in Idaho for use as an operations base. It was later established that these rumors were unfounded.

• Weaver would not voluntarily leave Ruby Ridge to face the charges pending against him. He would kill any law enforcement official who came to arrest him. His children followed his beliefs, would defend him if any attempt were made to hurt him or take him away, and were willing to die if necessary. This assessment was based, in part, on a brief psychological profile completed by a person who had conducted no first-hand interviews and was sufficiently unfamiliar with the case that he referred to Weaver as "Mr. Randall" throughout.

• Weaver was involved with ongoing disputes with several of his neighbors, some of whom alleged that gunshots were directed toward them from the Weaver property. One of these feuds had escalated to the brink of open violence by the time of the August 21 surveillance mission, and a neighbor had threatened to take matters into his own hands if authorities did not act. (9/12/95 Tr. at 19 (Hudson)). The neighbor, Ruth Rau, reported the gunshots to local law enforcement officials, although she did not actually see where they were directed. (9/20/95 Tr. at 125 (Rau)).

To be sure, significant portions of this information were correct, or at least reasonable. For example, although the Secret Service declined to file charges against Weaver for threatening the President's life, we were unable to learn if this was because they conclusively believed Weaver did not make such statements or because the case simply would be too hard to prove. In addition, the Marshals Service's conclusion that Weaver would not leave his cabin voluntarily, and might try to kill any law enforcement officers who tried to arrest him, was based upon credible information, including interviews with various neighbors who had heard him make such remarks. But, as we have noted, major portions of the information were incorrect or only partially credible.

The Subcommittee is also concerned that, as Marshals investigating the Weaver case learned facts that contradicted information they previously had been provided, they did not adequately integrate their updated knowledge into their overall assessment of who Randy Weaver was or what threat he might pose. If the Marshals made any attempt to assess the credibility of the various people who gave them information about Weaver, they never recorded their assessments. Thus, rather than maintaining the Threat Source Profile as a living document, the Marshals added new reports to an ever-expanding file, and their overall assessment never really changed. These problems rendered it difficult for other law enforcement officials to assess the Weaver case accurately without the benefit of first-hand briefings from persons who had continuing involvement with him.

Naaman Brown (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign Immunity Assertion Misleading

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:

Manslaughter Charge

In 1997, Boundary County, Idaho Prosecutor Denise Woodbury, with the help of special prosecutor Stephen Yagman, charged Horiuchi in state court with involuntary manslaughter. Horiuchi successfully petitioned to remove the case to federal court, (ref: "F.B.I. Agent to Be Tried In Federal Court", The New York Times, 1998-01-13) where the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge on May 14, 1998, who cited the supremacy clause of the Constitution which grants immunity to federal officers acting in the scope of their employment.(ref Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 2001))

The decision to dismiss the charges was reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, which held that enough uncertainty about the facts of the case existed for Horiuchi to stand trial on state manslaughter charges. Ultimately, the then-sitting Boundary County Prosecutor, Brett Benson, who had defeated Woodbury in the 2000 election, decided to drop the charges because he felt it was unlikely the state could prove the case and too much time had passed. Yagman, the special prosecutor, responded that he "could not disagree more with this decision than I do."(ref "F.B.I. Agent To Be Spared Prosecution In Shooting", New York Times, 2001-06-15)

The ninth Circuit granted Boundary County's motion to dismiss the case against Horiuchi on September 14, 2001.(ref "Idaho v. Horiuchi, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001))

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)

"Law Enforcement Action" infobox

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)