- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Ruby Ridge..
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the report of the official
investigation was false, or
are you just interpreting it in a far different
manner than I do?
http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby1.htm
As far as I can tell, the orders were consistent
with SOP for Houston drug
enforcement.
Dan M.
Just from reading the introduction the FBI's Hostage
Rescue Team . . . instituted a shoot on sight policy .
. .. That's what I was referring to.
Rogers explained his initial thoughts about the Rules of Engagement:
In this particular situation, after hearing the description of what had
taken place, specifically the fire-fight, the loss of a marshal, it was
clear to me that there was a shooting situation taking place at this
location. It appeared to me that it would have been irresponsible for me to
send my agents into the situation without at least giving them a set of
rules within the greater framework of the standard FBI rules, that would
allow them to defend themselves. With that in mind, I proposed that the
rules be that if any adult is seen with a weapon in the vicinity of where
this fire-fight took place, of the Weaver cabin, that this individual could
be the subject of deadly force... [A]ny child is going to come under
standard FBI rules, meaning that if an FBI agent is threatened with death
or some other innocent is threatened with death by a child, then clearly
that agent could use a weapon to shoot the child... that's the way it's
stated, but quite frankly, we try to prevent ourselves from being put in
positions where children can threaten us and where we would have to use
deadly force. [FN532]
When asked if he had considered the possibility that an adult might be seen
with a weapon slung on his shoulder or carried in a nonoffensive way,
Rogers replied:
I went down a bit and it was specifically giving permission to shoot armed
adults. This was after an agent got killed in a fire fight.
quote
Yes, it was considered, and it's always my knowledge that my sniper
observers and my other team members are clearly going to make a judgmental
call as to whether to employ deadly force, and based upon the training,
based upon the experience of these men, I know that they have absolutely
the best judgment when it comes to use of deadly force. [FN533]
Rogers acknowledged that the Rules of Engagement he proposed specified that
any adult with a weapon observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin or in
the firefight area could and should be the subject of deadly force.
[FN534] According to Rogers he discussed this rule with FBI Assistant
Director Larry Potts who concurred fully. [FN535]
[G.J.] [FN536]
Potts considered the information provided by the Marshals Service to be the
basis of the proposed Rules of Engagement. He recalled the proposed Rules
of Engagement as providing that:
Potts considered the information provided by the Marshals Service to be the
basis of the proposed Rules of Engagement. He recalled the proposed Rules
of Engagement as providing that:
Any adult with a weapon who was observed in the vicinity of Randall
Weaver's cabin or the fire fight area, COULD be the subject of deadly
force. All efforts should be made to avoid any confrontation with children,
but if such a confrontation became unavoidable, that faced with the threat
of death or grievous bodily harm, the standard FBI use of deadly force
policy would be in effect. [FN537]
end quote
I would agree that, even after an agent was killed in a firefight, this is
excessive. I think that some way to address the possibility of a weapon
being present in a non-threatening position should have been in the orders.
But, that is not the same as a shoot to kill order.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
