literal dog kill teams and snipers shooting women holding infants.
There were no "dog kill teams". The US Marshalls and another agency deputy (I forget which, could have been ATF), were doing armed surveillance of the house and got caught when the family did an armed patrol of their property. Dog charged the agents, and the agents shot the dog, prompting the son of the family to shoot at the agents, prompting the agents to shoot him.
The sniper did shoot Jackie(?), however, he couldn't see her, and wasn't aiming for her. The sniper testified that he was actually given instructions by the FBI to shoot ALL persons on the property, armed or not. He decided that ROE was way too extreme, tried to get clarification that they were only to engage armed men specifically. The FBI never got back to him. He reported hearing gunfire and assumed it was family members shooting at the orbiting helicopter. He saw a line of people headed back into the house, one of them armed with a rifle, and fired at the man holding a gun who was opening a door into the garage. Jackie happened to be standing on the opposite side of the door while the man was trying to get in. The bullet passed through him, through the door, and through her.
None of this explains the behavior of the FBI and ATF, especially when the FBI is giving orders to shoot everyone, and the snipers themselves think that's crazy.
Appreciate the correction. I had confused the Waco team with the guy who just went and shot the dog while doing something else. So it wasn't a "dog kill team" specifically, it was just a trespasser who shot a dog protecting their property and then a kid upset you shot their dog. Not sarcasm, just explaining how I made the mistake in my mind.
Jackie happened to be standing on the opposite side of the door
You know, when you are an absurdly trained special agent for the top level government engaging with American citizens on American property for a honeypot gone wrong and you "Aren't sure about the ROE" I don't think you should fire at all, and the fact that you did anyway makes me question if everything else you said wasn't just you trying to cover your ass by making yourself sound blameless and trying to "do the right thing."
Like, even if everything he testified is 100% the truth, that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the government look worse and him look like an untrustable loose agent who just fires without knowing the full extent of the situation and gets random people killed. Which he already looked like, but now he looks less like a cold sociopath and more like an idiot which is almost worse.
it was just a trespasser who shot a dog protecting their property and then a kid upset you shot their dog. Not sarcasm, just explaining how I made the mistake in my mind.
Mostly, the kid also shot at the trespasser. The family were doing armed patrols of their property.
Like, even if everything he testified is 100% the truth, that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the government look worse and him look like an untrustable loose agent who just fires without knowing the full extent of the situation and gets random people killed.
I trust his statement because he threw the FBI under the bus. He wasn't given any briefing is part of the problem. They pulled him from some other thing he was doing, told him there were dead agents, huge risk, and they were flying him in along with basically every available weapon the FBI could get their hands on. He had no idea what lead up to the situation, was not briefed on any ATF investigation, thrown directly into what seemed to be a combat situation with contradictory orders. And again, he only shot what he believed to be an armed male. The orders he originally had would have allowed him to shoot the armed adult male, along with the unarmed males and females, and the children. Which is really alarming.
His description of the scene for the FBI is also startling. The FBI were acting like they were under attack, personally, by the Weavers, in some sort of offensive. It was total chaos. Panicked agents and command staff running around with guns and ammunition in every direction, multiple helicopters flying around, discussions about having the helicopters fire into the building for suppressive fire, they were staging up military tracked vehicles to launch a full on assault into the house, and of course, the insane ROE. From the sniper's testimony, it sounded like the FBI were acting like it was Khe Sahn, and the Weavers were the NVA. This paranoid fever dream is also what led him to think shooting the male was legal. He was under the impression that the Weavers were actively firing at helicopters and trying to shoot them down (there appears to be no evidence of this). The helicopter pilots report hearing gunshots but not actually seeing anyone shoot at them.
None of this makes the situation any better, and yeah, it actually makes the FBI look wildly worse. it makes them look like paranoid, delusional, madmen who shouldn't be around weapons. Which, again, is an amazing statement by their own sniper.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight, one in which the guy who literally killed the kid and had the bullets linked to his actual gun said Randy killed his son to deny himself any responsibility.
he...shot
I don't disagree with all the 5641693846 mitigating excuses he gave, they are all valid.
My point is he shot despite all that confusion and contradiction. He still chose to ignore the obvious problem with this situation and open fire on an American citizen. He can blame everyone he wants, and be completely valid in throwing them under the bus with him as they clearly also deserve considerable blame.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant. He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight
Sure, but you can shoot dogs that charge at you. The issue is more about why were they there in the first place that led to the situation spiraling so wildly out of control.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there. That's the same thing with the Brionna Taylor shooting. Literally none of the cops knew she was there, nor could they see here, but their fusillade (in response to her boyfriend's gunfire) still killed her. In that situation, at least the cops could confirm they were actually being shot at.
I think I've seen some police departments have to pay compensation, but I don't think I've seen criminal charges. Closest case was when the NYPD fired at an armed, fleeing man, shot at him, and hit 4 people. I don't think the cops were held for any criminal negligence.
I have seen civilians held for criminal negligence for the same thing, though.
He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.
There were no "dog kill teams". The US Marshalls and another agency deputy (I forget which, could have been ATF), were doing armed surveillance of the house and got caught when the family did an armed patrol of their property. Dog charged the agents, and the agents shot the dog, prompting the son of the family to shoot at the agents, prompting the agents to shoot him.
The sniper did shoot Jackie(?), however, he couldn't see her, and wasn't aiming for her. The sniper testified that he was actually given instructions by the FBI to shoot ALL persons on the property, armed or not. He decided that ROE was way too extreme, tried to get clarification that they were only to engage armed men specifically. The FBI never got back to him. He reported hearing gunfire and assumed it was family members shooting at the orbiting helicopter. He saw a line of people headed back into the house, one of them armed with a rifle, and fired at the man holding a gun who was opening a door into the garage. Jackie happened to be standing on the opposite side of the door while the man was trying to get in. The bullet passed through him, through the door, and through her.
None of this explains the behavior of the FBI and ATF, especially when the FBI is giving orders to shoot everyone, and the snipers themselves think that's crazy.
Appreciate the correction. I had confused the Waco team with the guy who just went and shot the dog while doing something else. So it wasn't a "dog kill team" specifically, it was just a trespasser who shot a dog protecting their property and then a kid upset you shot their dog. Not sarcasm, just explaining how I made the mistake in my mind.
You know, when you are an absurdly trained special agent for the top level government engaging with American citizens on American property for a honeypot gone wrong and you "Aren't sure about the ROE" I don't think you should fire at all, and the fact that you did anyway makes me question if everything else you said wasn't just you trying to cover your ass by making yourself sound blameless and trying to "do the right thing."
Like, even if everything he testified is 100% the truth, that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the government look worse and him look like an untrustable loose agent who just fires without knowing the full extent of the situation and gets random people killed. Which he already looked like, but now he looks less like a cold sociopath and more like an idiot which is almost worse.
Mostly, the kid also shot at the trespasser. The family were doing armed patrols of their property.
I trust his statement because he threw the FBI under the bus. He wasn't given any briefing is part of the problem. They pulled him from some other thing he was doing, told him there were dead agents, huge risk, and they were flying him in along with basically every available weapon the FBI could get their hands on. He had no idea what lead up to the situation, was not briefed on any ATF investigation, thrown directly into what seemed to be a combat situation with contradictory orders. And again, he only shot what he believed to be an armed male. The orders he originally had would have allowed him to shoot the armed adult male, along with the unarmed males and females, and the children. Which is really alarming.
His description of the scene for the FBI is also startling. The FBI were acting like they were under attack, personally, by the Weavers, in some sort of offensive. It was total chaos. Panicked agents and command staff running around with guns and ammunition in every direction, multiple helicopters flying around, discussions about having the helicopters fire into the building for suppressive fire, they were staging up military tracked vehicles to launch a full on assault into the house, and of course, the insane ROE. From the sniper's testimony, it sounded like the FBI were acting like it was Khe Sahn, and the Weavers were the NVA. This paranoid fever dream is also what led him to think shooting the male was legal. He was under the impression that the Weavers were actively firing at helicopters and trying to shoot them down (there appears to be no evidence of this). The helicopter pilots report hearing gunshots but not actually seeing anyone shoot at them.
None of this makes the situation any better, and yeah, it actually makes the FBI look wildly worse. it makes them look like paranoid, delusional, madmen who shouldn't be around weapons. Which, again, is an amazing statement by their own sniper.
After they shot and killed his dog. That's an important point. They started the gunfight, one in which the guy who literally killed the kid and had the bullets linked to his actual gun said Randy killed his son to deny himself any responsibility.
I don't disagree with all the 5641693846 mitigating excuses he gave, they are all valid.
My point is he shot despite all that confusion and contradiction. He still chose to ignore the obvious problem with this situation and open fire on an American citizen. He can blame everyone he wants, and be completely valid in throwing them under the bus with him as they clearly also deserve considerable blame.
But he still decided to take a shot, one without the full knowledge of what was behind his target, something we all literally learn Day 1 of operating a firearm, and in doing so killed an innocent woman holding an infant. He made that choice to fire and that puts him 100% responsible for what happened.
Sure, but you can shoot dogs that charge at you. The issue is more about why were they there in the first place that led to the situation spiraling so wildly out of control.
TBH, I don't ever think I've seen a cop ever be held liable for hitting a target he couldn't see and didn't know was there. That's the same thing with the Brionna Taylor shooting. Literally none of the cops knew she was there, nor could they see here, but their fusillade (in response to her boyfriend's gunfire) still killed her. In that situation, at least the cops could confirm they were actually being shot at.
I think I've seen some police departments have to pay compensation, but I don't think I've seen criminal charges. Closest case was when the NYPD fired at an armed, fleeing man, shot at him, and hit 4 people. I don't think the cops were held for any criminal negligence.
I have seen civilians held for criminal negligence for the same thing, though.
He's responsible for taking the shot, but we can't deny the responsibility of the FBI acting as insane as they were.