Talk:Ruby Ridge standoff

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruby Ridge standoff article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]