Yep, so far I do not think they have acted professionally. But YOU asked what I thought. The OP is just the article and no opinion from me.

You offered your opinion before I asked. Go back and read the thread......

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Yep, so far I do not think they have acted professionally. But YOU asked what I thought. The OP is just the article and no opinion from me.

Can we all be upfront, in listing the article the implication and desired conclusion of readers was the ATF acted inappropriately.

The article with its loaded language of “cowboying up,” citizens paying for it with their lives, “excessive,” and WACO is the opinion of the poster. That is an honest statement.

The article is an opinion piece. When one puts such an opinion piece forward with no rejections, the article is the opinion of who proffers it. That is a fair position? If not tell me so and why.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Yep, so far I do not think they have acted professionally. But YOU asked what I thought. The OP is just the article and no opinion from me.

Can we all be upfront, in listing the article the implication and desired conclusion of readers was the ATF acted inappropriately.

The article with its loaded language of “cowboying up,” citizens paying for it with their lives, “excessive,” and WACO is the opinion of the poster. That is an honest statement.

The article is an opinion piece. When one puts such an opinion piece forward with no rejections, the article is the opinion of who proffers it. That is a fair position? If not tell me so and why.

So? That's why I posted it- for discussion. This is a guns and hunting site, the perfect place to discuss these things. Right? If you have other information/sources then post them. Let's see it!

BTW- you are expressing plenty of your own opinion as well. I am not and have not been beating anyone here over the head about it.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
You offered your opinion before I asked. Go back and read the thread......

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Yep, so far I do not think they have acted professionally. But YOU asked what I thought. The OP is just the article and no opinion from me.

Can we all be upfront, in listing the article the implication and desired conclusion of readers was the ATF acted inappropriately.

The article with its loaded language of “cowboying up,” citizens paying for it with their lives, “excessive,” and WACO is the opinion of the poster. That is an honest statement.

The article is an opinion piece. When one puts such an opinion piece forward with no rejections, the article is the opinion of who proffers it. That is a fair position? If not tell me so and why.

So? That's why I posted it- for discussion. This is a guns and hunting site, the perfect place to discuss these things. Right? If you have other information/sources then post them. Let's see it!

BTW- you are expressing plenty of your own opinion as well. I am not and have not been beating anyone here over the head about it.

So, you gave your opinion at the onset by selecting this article. My opinion is that we do not have enough information to reach the conclusions and paradigm the article presupposes.

I am not saying anyone is beating anyone up. I am saying the article is the advancement of opinion, but short in facts needed to reach the desired conclusions.

The people to blame for Waco are David Koresh, Steven Schneider, and Wayne Martin.

Ann, I am curious. What exactly was your law enforcement experience and position? Your statement says the Feds were and are unprofessional, but you don't say what your experience with the Feds was.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

The people to blame for Waco are David Koresh, Steven Schneider, and Wayne Martin.

Blame is subjective, and to believe that all the blame belongs to one side is simplistic view that I don’t believe that you truly hold.

Are you saying that the ATF under Janette Reno had no choice but to carry out the siege in the manner that they did?

How many lives would have been spared if they had kept Koresh under surveillance and arrested him on one of his regular trips outside the compound?

One does not have a right to resist law enforcement acting unfree the color of a search warrant and arrest warrants with violence.

Your legal responsibility, right, and duty is to surrender and fight it out in court.

We are not laws into ourselves.

Again, WACO fault falls to those who refused to surrender to the warrants.

They had search warrants for the compound to seize the illegal weapons, and search warrants to affect the arrest warrants. One must have a search warrant to arrest someone on an arrest warrant when the person is in a residency. There are some exceptions to the search warrant to affect an arrest warrant.

I agree that under the law you have no right to fight it out.

However, Koresh and company were known to not be reasonable.

While legal fault is certainly all on Koresh, the ATF and FBI morally are at fault because they knew there were innocents in the building and there were better ways of arresting Koresh than an armed raid.

Like the Weaver case… subsequent litigation showed the confrontation was entirely generated by the feds, and they shot an innocent woman over an entrapment they generated. In that case, again, IMO, someone who authorized it should have been charged and put in prison. Maybe not Reno, and maybe not Horichi, but whoever authorized the operation and knowing this all authorized the ROE that allowed Horichi to shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I agree that under the law you have no right to fight it out.

However, Koresh and company were known to not be reasonable.

While legal fault is certainly all on Koresh, the ATF and FBI morally are at fault because they knew there were innocents in the building and there were better ways of arresting Koresh than an armed raid.

Like the Weaver case… subsequent litigation showed the confrontation was entirely generated by the feds, and they shot an innocent woman over an entrapment they generated. In that case, again, IMO, someone who authorized it should have been charged and put in prison. Maybe not Reno, and maybe not Horichi, but whoever authorized the operation and knowing this all authorized the ROE that allowed Horichi to shoot.

The fact they are known not to be responsible is every reason to go armed like they did, and the illegal weapons.

The am correct question to ask is how many lives would have been saved if the people like faulty had surrendered as the law requires.

No it’s not.

To someone like Koresh you pretty much know they will not surrender peaceably.

Sometimes the government needs to be the reasonable one in the room. Claiming that “if they had surrendered” when you know the odds of that are pretty much zero is not acting responsibly.

There needs to be more than that simplistic view taken before high risk tactics are used.

Remember that poor black reverend that burned to death because some yahoo tossed a concussion grenade into a house based on a random informant report and it was the wrong address? Yeah, not the feds, but similar lack of logic being used.

an interesting read
https://davekopel.org/Waco/LawRev/warrant.htm

btw, squire (you do style yourself esquire in your formal signature, don't you?), in Texas it's a DUTY to comply - neither a right nor responsibility to do so - the difference is clear. Further, while a Texan has a right to fight in court, there is no duty nor responsibility to do so. You might scale back on your grandiose rhetoric - your hyperbole is showing

"Duty" and "responsibility" are more closely related in meaning than "comply" and "compel."

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
"Duty" and "responsibility" are more closely related in meaning than "comply" and "compel."

i can only offer these results for your reading pleasure - perhaps it will offer a difference of opinion
https://www.google.com/search?...ceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

the first offering reads

quote:

What is the Difference between Duties and Responsibilities? The generally accepted meanings of these two above words are as follows: duty is an obligation that one has to fulfill and responsibility is the act of accepting and acting on a task that has been assigned to you.

compel and comply? sir, i offer that these are the different ends of the same stick -- a power compels one to comply -- the law compels me to comply - which I ALWAYS do, when compliance is required.

"A driver has a duty to observe the speed limit."

"A driver has a responsibility to observe the speed limit."

They aren't the same, but they're close enough to be interchangeable in common usage.

Anyhow, I didn't say the two mean the same thing, just that they're more closely related in meaning than "compel" and "comply."

I disagree -- as 155,000,000 google results -
The LAW compels a duty - which I must comply with or be held responsible for my actions of not complying -

the etymology of the words is actually in contradiction of your position - i ask that you reconsider -- or not - you have no DUTY to comply with my request ---

are you seeing the differences?

allow me to wax pedantic

quote:

com·pel
Origin

late Middle English: from Latin compellere, from com- ‘together’ + pellere ‘drive’.

quote:

comply
late 16th century: from Italian complire, Catalan complir, Spanish cumplir, from Latin complere ‘fill up, fulfill’ (see complete). The original sense was ‘fulfill, accomplish’, later ‘fulfill the requirements of courtesy’, hence ‘to be agreeable, to oblige or obey’. Compare with compliment.

quote:

Duty Origin

late Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French duete, from Old French deu (see due).

quote:

responsibility Modern French responsable, as if from Latin *responsabilis), from Latin respons-, past participle stem of respondere “to respond” (see respond). Meaning “accountable for one's actions” is attested from 1640s; that of “reliable, trustworthy” is from 1690s

quote:

pedantic (adj.)
"making an undue or inappropriate display of learning, absurdly learned," formed in English c. 1600, from pedant + -ic. The French equivalent is pédantesque

quote:

self-dep·re·cat·ing
adjective
modest about or critical of oneself, especially humorously so.

AS one can see, compel and comply are ACTUALLY from the same root word.. while duty and responsibility don't

then again, ravel and unravel mean EXACTLY the same thing
english is weird

quote:

The LAW compels a duty - which I must comply with or be held responsible for my actions of not complying

Hmm. If you breach a duty, you are held responsible. I think I get it now.

I didn't say anything about etymology, though it's an interesting subject. You're arguing against a position I haven't taken.

My position is that "duty" and "responsibility" are closer in current meaning than "compel" and "comply"--which as you've said, are opposite ends of the same stick, i.e, polar opposites.

You ought to be resorting to a dictionary and a thesaurus, not etymological data.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
an interesting read
https://davekopel.org/Waco/LawRev/warrant.htm

btw, squire (you do style yourself esquire in your formal signature, don't you?), in Texas it's a DUTY to comply - neither a right nor responsibility to do so - the difference is clear. Further, while a Texan has a right to fight in court, there is no duty nor responsibility to do so. You might scale back on your grandiose rhetoric - your hyperbole is showing

The law defines your rights. You have no right to resist a warrant with force. The law requires that you surrender to a warrant peacefully. Your responsibility under the law is to surrender to an officer acting under the color of law peacefully. You have a right to challenge that arrest, that warrant through the Courts.

The people to blame for WACO are the names I gave earlier. Deal with it or do not deal with it.

I will tell you who also carriers blame for this false belief about WACO. The NRA and its propaganda surrendering WACO.

If one were to find oneself subject to a warrant and chose to prevent execution of the warrant with force, then folks are going to get hurt. Said person does not have clean hands, and pushed the dominoes over to the result.

Your right to challenge a warrant is through the court after surrender.

I give, roland - it's your position, and I attempted to modify your opinion - and while I disagree with you opinion to conclusion, i respect it.

squire, show me where i even INFERRED that one has a right to resist by force -- that's your puppet, go play with it.