From: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C)
Subject: Re: Flame. (was Re: Idaho, Randy Weaver and Tax Revolts)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:50:50 GMT


>In article <1992Sep13.141807.16291@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C) writes:
>>   Does anyone (preferably someone in Idaho) know what has become  of
>> Randy Weaver.
>> 
>> [For those who don't know, during (I think) the last week in August,
>> this guy was laid siege to by the feds in his cabin atop some
>> Idaho mountain. According to brief coverage on the ABC Nightly News,
>> he was a gun running white supremicist. I guesss this is why the feds
>> thought it was OK to kill his eldest son, wife and dog. 
>
>a) This has nothing to do with libertarian politics. I don't know where
>   better to discuss it than here, but alt.flame sounds like a good start.
>   You can email to me also, if you like.

Ahh tarl, you really ought to try decaf pal. First off,  I have since
learned that Randy was indicted for selling a shotgon that was 1/4
inch too short to an undercover BATF official. However, I stand by my
statment that he was a principal organizer of a tax revolt group, and
that would certainly lie within the purview of this news group.
Even if I'm wrong on this, I would hazard to say that there is room
for reasonable people to doubt the govt's motives ;-)

>b) Mr. Weaver was arrested on a Title II weapons charge (federal crime,
>   penalty not to exceed 10 years in prison and $10,000 fine), and he
>   didn't bother to show up in court (I don't know if there was a bail
>   that he skipped). He had made it clear that he would react violently
>   to further interaction with law enforcement, so the feds approached
>   his case with significant trepidation.
>c) His son was killed in a gun battle triggered by Mr. Weaver's friend/
>   adopted son. One of his dogs (he had several) was shot while munching
>   on a deputy U.S. Marshall's arm. I don't know the circumstances of his
>   wife's death, but it happened the day after the gun battle. By that time,
>   politics would have had very little to do with anyone's actions - combat
>   priorities were almost certainly foremost by then.
>
Yes, I know the son fired first. Note I did not say that the feds had no cause to shoot, but as far as I know, it is not yet a capital offense for
a woman to hold a baby in her arms. In the interest of brevity, I didn't
go into the complete story. But since you're obviously not worried about
conserving bandwidth, perhaps I should not be either.

>As far as I know, there is very little relationship between the goals and
>methods of White Supremacists and those of Libertarians. A number of groups
>with varying agendas would like to have a freer hand and less interference
>from the government, but that doesn't make them libertarians.

Tsk Tsk Tarl. If your reading comprehension were a little better, you'd
notice that I said, "... the ABC nightly news called him a white
supremicist." I do not believe he is, but it was an easy story for 
the feds to use to buy off the media [which, surprisingly enough, has yet
to report any of Weaver's own words.]

>
>Lastly, your information on the case seems to be exclusively from TV and
>netnews. If you're going to make comments like the above "...this is why...",
>you should at least make an attempt to obtain information from the print
>media, which is usually far more detailed.

Ahh yes, the "my sources are better than yours", argument. If you would
have noticed, I mentioned that my sources included TV, net news and RADIO.
In fact, one radio program consisted of a 3 hour interview with a
retired Idaho sheriff WHO WAS ON THE SCENE. I'd put more faith in his
story than some pool reporter who got his story via an FBI or BATF
official. Moreover, I did not say that I read no newspapers. You made
that assumption on your own.

No doubt you believe that everything in hard print has the aura of 
truth and is as pure as the wind driven snow. From first hand
experience with the reporters I've dealt with, I know better.

>
>My apologies for this flame.
This is like saying, "It goes without saying." But , of course, you do.

>-- 
>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

  Since my primary purpose in posting this, originally short, note
was to "shake the trees and rake the leaves" for more info, I'll
have to thank Tarl for further enlightening me. I hope we don't
all forget Mr. Weaver, for I think there is more to his story
than has been reported and if the tax story turns out, as I believe
it will, to be true, the implications are surely of interest
to all Libertarians.

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for the legibility of this
	    note after it leaves my PC, gets battered by the merit
	    server, and is further mauled by our Ultrix news
	    server.

Steve Langer
  The 1'st gives me the right to speak freely. The 2'nd guarantees
  the 1'st.

Newsgroups: alt.flame