PDA

View Full Version : H-S Precision hires LON HORIUCHI as spokeperson


WhiteSands
11-25-2008, 3:18 PM
For the three of you who don't know who Lon Horiuchi is, he's the FBI sniper of Ruby Ridge infamy who shot Vicki Weaver in cold blood while she was holding her baby.

I'm not sure what H-S was thinking when they decided to hire this despicable thug as a spokesperson, but they are in dire need of remedial correction for this deplorable business decision.

For those wishing to contact them, here's the info:

İH-S PRECISION, INC.
1301 TURBINE DRIVE,
RAPID CITY, SD 57703
(605) 341-3006 TEL
(605) 342-8964 FAX
Email: info@hsprecision.com

DrjonesUSA
11-25-2008, 3:26 PM
STFU!!!!!!!

Do you have a link for this??????

Bizob
11-25-2008, 3:42 PM
After doing some research on Lon Horiuchi, you have to be kidding me. Why would you hire this guy as your spokesperson. As a student that is one semester away from graduating with a business degree with a concentration in marketing take it from me, this is a HUGE public relations mistake that they will regret if true. Actually I might have to bring this up in my Public Relations and Ethics class, should make for an interesting discussion.

WhiteSands
11-25-2008, 3:48 PM
STFU!!!!!!!

Do you have a link for this??????

Look at the back of their catalog near the bottom the circled in yellow portion.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/2182/hsprecisioncatalogpz8.jpg

aplinker
11-25-2008, 3:50 PM
:shrug:

He's not really a "spokesperson" if that's all he's doing. He did, after all, select HS for the FBI's contract - which says something about their products.

Matt C
11-25-2008, 4:24 PM
He's not really a "spokesperson" if that's all he's doing. He did, after all, select HS for the FBI's contract - which says something about their products.

If you absolutely have to shoot unarmed women holding babies, H-S Precision is the only tool for the job...:rolleyes:

One company I will never buy from now, thanks for the heads up.

CleverName
11-25-2008, 4:26 PM
True.

That's still an unwise choice to publish his endorsement, given the political orientation and general attitude towards Ruby Ridge and Waco of the majority of gun owners.

:shrug:

He's not really a "spokesperson" if that's all he's doing. He did, after all, select HS for the FBI's contract - which says something about their products.

aplinker
11-25-2008, 4:44 PM
If you absolutely have to shoot unarmed women holding babies, H-S Precision is the only tool for the job...:rolleyes:

One company I will never buy from now, thanks for the heads up.


I don't disagree, but it's not really "spokesperson."

DDRH
11-25-2008, 4:44 PM
ya'll can always set up some sort of boycott. right? i mean, wow, i really like that remington 700P with the HS stock...although, i'd still get it someday...maybe after they get a new spokesperson?

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 4:47 PM
Holy crap. Even using his name is utterly fu*****.

trinydex
11-25-2008, 4:55 PM
For the three of you who don't know who Lon Horiuchi is, he's the FBI sniper of Ruby Ridge infamy who shot Vicki Weaver in cold blood while she was holding her baby.

I'm not sure what H-S was thinking when they decided to hire this despicable thug as a spokesperson, but they are in dire need of remedial correction for this deplorable business decision.

For those wishing to contact them, here's the info:

İH-S PRECISION, INC.
1301 TURBINE DRIVE,
RAPID CITY, SD 57703
(605) 341-3006 TEL
(605) 342-8964 FAX
Email: info@hsprecision.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi

why does the wiki say it went through a door and killed her while also wounding the guy he was aiming at?

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 5:03 PM
So he took a shot at someone who was clearly not a threat, and failed to follow the firearm safety rule that mandates you know what the hell is beyond your target, and ended up killing a woman.

And that's the absolute best case scenario. If any of us common folk had done that, how many years would we get? 6? 10? We sure as hell wouldn't go on to get a nice little promotion.

Are you seriously going to defend their decision to get an endorsement from a guy who's only claim to fame is killing an unarmed woman?

trinydex
11-25-2008, 5:04 PM
i'm not really up on why this is so huff huff... but i guess it's because no one should have been shooting in the first place....

on another note...

http://countenance.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/wheres-lon-horiuchi-when-you-need-him/

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 5:10 PM
"i'm not really up on why this is so huff huff"
Because the government attacked it's own citizens. Because an unarmed person was killed by the government, and no one was ever brought to justice for it. Because the government got away with murder.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 8:20 PM
Because the government attacked it's own citizens. Because an unarmed person was killed by the government, and no one was ever brought to justice for it. Because the government got away with murder.

I certainly wasn't at Ruby Ridge. My information is limited to what I read from those who were there.

You can argue that both sides have a stake in spinning the truth. The "Government murdered unarmed citizens" arguement gets a lot of press, and likely has some truth to it.

There are other, less publicized accounts that say there were three persons armed with rifles who emerged from the cabin. They rushed towards the tree line. They then turned and ran back into the cabin. An FBI sniper fired two shots in an attempt to prevent the armed individuals from gaining sanctuary in the cabin. One of those shots penetrated the door and killed Vicki Weaver inside.

I don't know what the rules of engagement were. Was there immediate threat to life? Perhaps not. Were they a threat? Hey, someone rushes me with a rifle, I'm taking the shot.

Do not forget that a Marshal's Service Agent had been shot and killed trying to serve a warrant on Randy Weaver for selling short barrel shotguns without the necessary permits. Randy Weaver, by the way, had affiliations with the Aryan Nations. Not quite the poster boy some would make him out to be. Again, even in this first conflict leading to "Ruby Ridge", there is abiguity about who shot first, etc.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong. Just pointing out that there are two sides to every story.

eaglemike
11-25-2008, 8:43 PM
I certainly wasn't at Ruby Ridge. My information is limited to what I read from those who were there.

You can argue that both sides have a stake in spinning the truth. The "Government murdered unarmed citizens" arguement gets a lot of press, and likely has some truth to it.

There are other, less publicized accounts that say there were three persons armed with rifles who emerged from the cabin. They rushed towards the tree line. They then turned and ran back into the cabin. An FBI sniper fired two shots in an attempt to prevent the armed individuals from gaining sanctuary in the cabin. One of those shots penetrated the door and killed Vicki Weaver inside.

I don't know what the rules of engagement were. Was there immediate threat to life? Perhaps not. Were they a threat? Hey, someone rushes me with a rifle, I'm taking the shot.

Do not forget that a Marshal's Service Agent had been shot and killed trying to serve a warrant on Randy Weaver for selling short barrel shotguns without the necessary permits. Randy Weaver, by the way, had affiliations with the Aryan Nations. Not quite the poster boy some would make him out to be. Again, even in this first conflict leading to "Ruby Ridge", there is abiguity about who shot first, etc.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong. Just pointing out that there are two sides to every story.
Are you familiar with the background of the original charges? Have you read anything about what he was eventually convicted of doing? Have you read anything about how this conflict escalated?

In your best judgment, do you think the approach used in originating this conflict was well thought out to minimize risk to BOTH "sides" involved in this conflict?

all the best,
Mike

Shane916
11-25-2008, 8:51 PM
I certainly wasn't at Ruby Ridge. My information is limited to what I read from those who were there.

You can argue that both sides have a stake in spinning the truth. The "Government murdered unarmed citizens" arguement gets a lot of press, and likely has some truth to it.

There are other, less publicized accounts that say there were three persons armed with rifles who emerged from the cabin. They rushed towards the tree line. They then turned and ran back into the cabin. An FBI sniper fired two shots in an attempt to prevent the armed individuals from gaining sanctuary in the cabin. One of those shots penetrated the door and killed Vicki Weaver inside.

I don't know what the rules of engagement were. Was there immediate threat to life? Perhaps not. Were they a threat? Hey, someone rushes me with a rifle, I'm taking the shot.

Do not forget that a Marshal's Service Agent had been shot and killed trying to serve a warrant on Randy Weaver for selling short barrel shotguns without the necessary permits. Randy Weaver, by the way, had affiliations with the Aryan Nations. Not quite the poster boy some would make him out to be. Again, even in this first conflict leading to "Ruby Ridge", there is abiguity about who shot first, etc.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong. Just pointing out that there are two sides to every story.

I agree.

Since a lot of individuals hold such animosity towards LE I am not surprised that many of you would side with Randy Weaver and discredit the credibility of any LEO.

If you truly studied this incident and read the reports and facts. You would realize that he is not to blame and the rules of engagement were skewed.

It is an unfortunate incident, but to bash this guy for doing his job as an FBI sniper is rather intolerant.

Riodog
11-25-2008, 9:04 PM
I agree.

Since a lot of individuals hold such animosity towards LE I am not surprised that many of you would side with Randy Weaver and discredit the credibility of any LEO.

If you truly studied this incident and read the reports and facts. You would realize that he is not to blame and the rules of engagement were skewed.

It is an unfortunate incident, but to bash this guy for doing his job as an FBI sniper is rather intolerant.

SO splain to us about WACO.
Rio

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 9:30 PM
You talking about the Marshall who got killed AFTER they opened fire first and killed their dog? Who then also killed Samuel Weaver at that same exchange of fire?

Yeah, I can criticize Mr. Horiuchi quite easily. HE KILLED AN UNARMED PERSON. His incompetence, and his desire to shoot someone, left someone dead who shouldn't have been killed.

The first shot...fine. There could have been justification for that. The second? No way in hell. You don't shoot unless there's a threat. A guy running away into his house is not a threat.

What appalls me...what pisses me the **** off (and should do the same to you) is that the *#*#% government REFUSED to do anything to punish it. Any local LE would have been crucified under similar circumstances.

Randy Weaver may not be a poster child. But tell me this. What charges was he convicted of? Probation violation?

Is that something you want to let the government lay siege on its own citizens for?

elSquid
11-25-2008, 9:45 PM
I'm not saying who's right or wrong. Just pointing out that there are two sides to every story.

True, although it appears that this is a case of the gov't being overzealous.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/19.html

Page 21 is interesting:

"Following his release from jail, Randy Weaver flew back to Iowa with his children and filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the government for the killing of Samuel and Vicki Weaver. In an out-of-court settlement, Randy was given $100,000 and his daughters were granted $1 million apiece. "The government got caught with its pants down," Randy stated after the settlement. "They broke a whole bunch of serious laws, they were totally embarrassed, and they settled our lawsuit out of court because they didn't want a lot of questions asked. This became a personal vendetta with the government when I laughed in the face of the agent who offered to drop my charges if I became an informant. They admitted in court that crime is about as serious as a traffic violation."

Federal prosecutors eventually ended a two-year long probe into several FBI officials for their role in the Ruby Ridge standoff. Following the investigation, Danny Coulson, former head of FBI headquarters, was given a letter of censure; Michael Kahoe, who had been involved in researching the rules of engagement, was censured and suspended for 15 days; Richard Rogers, head of the hostage rescue team, was censured and suspended for 10 days; Larry Potts, the man who had approved the rules of engagement, was censured; Eugene Glenn, Ruby Ridge field commander, was censured and suspended for 15 days, and Lou Horiuchi, the HRT "Blue" sniper/observer team leader, received no punishment for his actions, which resulted in the death of Vicki Weaver."

-- Michael

Thumper
11-25-2008, 10:08 PM
After reading all of this, what is one to do with their HS rifle? Sell it? Call them up and say they have made a mistake in using this guy to represent their business? I have had my TTD rifle for 6 years now, I dont think that i would like to sell it as it was my first rifle I bought. Maybe I will send them an email and ask them 'what's up with that'?

just a thought and not a very good one at that.

jon.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 10:11 PM
There are two issues here.

First are the events leading up to the shooting, and the rules of engagement handed down to the snipers. There is plenty of room for arguement on both sides, and I don't pretend to know the right answer here.

The second issue is the actions taken by the snipers on scene, working under the rules of engagement imposed upon them. The early posters to this thread scorned Horiuchi, some claiming that he committed deliberate murder. This is false. These guys were Hostage Rescue Team operators, highly trained. They are also humans, with the same fundamental limitations as you and I. Horiuchi was tracking a hostile threat carrying a rifle when he fired his fatal shots. Vicki Weaver was standing behind an opaque door. Horiuchi DID NOT deliberately kill her. This is a very important point. The killing of Vicki Weaver is horrible and I have no doubt that Mr. Horiuchi would take the bullet back were he able.

The entire situation may well have been utterly FUBAR. I do not believe that Horiuchi deserves the blame for it.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 10:14 PM
After reading all of this, what is one to do with their HS rifle? Sell it?

It's a fine product. If your misplaced hatred for Horiuchi is unquenchable, if you feel you absolutely must have a scapegoat for a whole cluster **** of an episode, then I'll be happy to take it off of your hands for you.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 10:27 PM
One additional point to consider:

Imagine an al-Qaeda member with an AK pops out of his home and rushes towards a U.S. military convoy that is laying siege to the place. He stops, then runs back to his house still holding his rifle. As far as I know the rules of engagement say he's fair game as long as he's holding that rifle.

That sounds fair to me, even though it is almost certain that innocent Iraqis have been killed because they were downrange while Coalition forces dealt with a bad guy.

Are U.S. Servicemen to be held responsible for murder? Certainly not.

ar15barrels
11-25-2008, 10:30 PM
Are you familiar with the background of the original charges? Have you read anything about what he was eventually convicted of doing? Have you read anything about how this conflict escalated?

I have my copy of Vicky and Randy Weaver's book.
Randy Weaver personally signed it for me at Knob Creek.

I also have a copy of Unintended Consequences that's signed for my by John Ross. :cool2:

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 10:42 PM
"I do not believe that Horiuchi deserves the blame for it. "
So you're excusing his act of firing at someone who very clearly was not a threat? An act which resulted in the death of an innocent?

The Weavers weren't waging war on the US, so your analogy of an Al Quaeda member falls flat. Try again.

"Horiuchi DID NOT deliberately kill her."
If you negligently discharge your gun and it kills someone, that's intentional homocide, at the absolute least. Horiuchi discharged his firearm without taking into account what was downrange, at a target that was no longer a threat. I can't believe you're attempting to excuse that.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 11:20 PM
So you're excusing his act of firing at someone who very clearly was not a threat? An act which resulted in the death of an innocent?

His target was clearly a threat. This person aggressively advanced on law enforcement while holding a rifle. Deciding to seek shelter does not remove the threat. The death of the innocent was an accident, not deliberate.


The Weavers weren't waging war on the US, so your analogy of an Al Quaeda member falls flat. Try again.

You are wrong. The analogy is directly applicable. The setting is different but the scenario is the same. I don't care if there is an active war or not, human life is equally valuable.


If you negligently discharge your gun and it kills someone, that's intentional homocide, at the absolute least. Horiuchi discharged his firearm without taking into account what was downrange, at a target that was no longer a threat. I can't believe you're attempting to excuse that.

I agree that Horiuchi should have taken consideration of what was down range. It's a fundamental safety rule of shooting. Perhaps he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, I don't understand the legal issues well enough to say.

I stand by my earlier statement: Horiuchi did not deliberately kill Vicki Weaver.

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 11:29 PM
"His target was clearly a threat."
Not when he's running away.

"The death of the innocent was an accident, not deliberate. "
He did not intend to shoot her. He did intend to fire to shot. He did so negligently. If I'm sitting at the balcony shooting at the apartments across the street and end up killing someone, I'm no less culpable.

"human life is equally valuable..."
The setting is absolutely important. You can't use tactics of war in a law enforcement operation. Please tell me you're not going to try to argue that. I also find that last part curious, seeing as you're defending the guy WHO KILLED AN INNOCENT, UNARMED PERSON.

"Horiuchi did not deliberately kill Vicki Weaver. "
And yet he did. I repeat. He intended to fire the shot. He negligently discharged his firearm. He's no different from someone shooting into a crowd of people. The only reason he wasn't convicted is because the federal government shielded him from it.

Local LEOs wouldn't have gotten away with it. Hell, look at how much flack LAPD Swat got when they killed that little kid in Lynwood. At least in that case the victim was being used as a human shield. Horiuchi wasn't under fire when he fatally shot Mrs. Weaver.

CRTguns
11-25-2008, 11:32 PM
That's going up in the window of the gun store tomorrow.:mad:
Going to be good for mcmillan's biz, though.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 11:37 PM
"His target was clearly a threat."
Not when he's running away.

Yes he is.

Your enemy does not lose his threat status just because he is maneuvering for an advantage. I consider the shelter of the house to be an advantage.

He did not intend to shoot her. He did intend to fire to shot. He did so negligently.

I think we agree here.

If I'm sitting at the balcony shooting at the apartments across the street and end up killing someone, I'm no less culpable.

Wow. Don't you think taking random pot shots in an urban area - absent a clear threat - is just a shade more reckless than the Ruby Ridge situation?

He negligently discharged his firearm. He's no different from someone shooting into a crowd of people.

Oh, please. Horiuchi did not see Weaver. Someone deliberately shooting into a crowd of people clearly knows what they are aiming at. I'm starting to wonder if this debate is worth continuing...

bigmike82
11-25-2008, 11:46 PM
"our enemy does not lose his threat status just because he is maneuvering for an advantage."
He does when he's running back into his house to get out of the line of fire. Cops can't shoot someone when they're running away and no longer posing an active threat. Why are FBI snipers given more latitude?

"is just a shade more reckless than the Ruby Ridge situation"
A shade more? Sure. But a lot closer to the degree of negligence shown by Horiuchi than the example you provided.

"Someone deliberately shooting into a crowd of people clearly knows what they are aiming at."
And Horiuchi couldn't have anticapated that someone might be inside the house? He's a "well trained operative" and didn't think that...gee...someone might actually be inside the house they live in?

I agree that he did not intentionally set out to kill Weaver. But he did negligently fire that shot at someone who was no longer a threat, and he did end up killing her. And he, and more broadly, the government as a whole, got away with unjustly killing an American. Just like Waco, though that's a whole different can of worms.

[edit]
I must admit I'm being very harsh on this guy. But that's because, IMO, he got away with murder. Not murder in the strict legal sense...but murder all the same. He also went on to fight at Waco (according to Wikipedia) and an overall long and succesful career with the FBI. And that pisses me off.

Experimentalist
11-25-2008, 11:49 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree, at least on some points.

Good night, BigMike.

bigmike82
11-26-2008, 12:05 AM
Good night, Experimentalist.

aplinker
11-26-2008, 1:06 AM
That's going up in the window of the gun store tomorrow.:mad:
Going to be good for mcmillan's biz, though.

Didn't you get the memo? It's all about Manners now, anyways. ;) :p

Ford8N
11-26-2008, 5:56 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4565369222910430105

heycorey
11-26-2008, 6:54 AM
Yes he is.

Your enemy does not lose his threat status just because he is maneuvering for an advantage. I consider the shelter of the house to be an advantage.



Here in the United States of America, we do not designate civilians (armed or not) on American soil involved in a police action as "enemies". They're called suspects ..., until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of criminal charges, by a jury of their peers in a court of law. And rules of engagement are far, far more strict for police than soldiers ... as they should be. Combat and police actions are two entirely different things.

PS - The entire affair was started by a sheriff shooting Randy Weaver's 14 year old son ... in the back.

tmuller
11-26-2008, 8:34 AM
The problem is that his name has become synonymous with Government police action on US citizens, and rightfully so. Terrible move by HS, I'm sending an email and letter and I hope they do something about it.

vandal
11-26-2008, 8:40 AM
Well I guess being behind the trigger for a negligent killing qualifies you to endorse the rifle... after all you did hit SOMETHING with it.

I stand by my earlier statement: Horiuchi did not deliberately kill Vicki Weaver.

GuyW
11-26-2008, 12:01 PM
...but to bash this guy for doing his job as an FBI sniper is rather intolerant.

Tuff. Goons are goons...

The wrong people died at Waco and Ruby Ridge....
.

GuyW
11-26-2008, 12:05 PM
Horiuchi did not deliberately kill Vicki Weaver.

Then he was incompetent as a shooter, let alone sniper.
.

ar15barrels
11-26-2008, 12:58 PM
For the three of you who don't know who Lon Horiuchi is, he's the FBI sniper of Ruby Ridge infamy who shot Vicki Weaver in cold blood while she was holding her baby.

I'm not sure what H-S was thinking when they decided to hire this despicable thug as a spokesperson, but they are in dire need of remedial correction for this deplorable business decision.

I'm still waiting for the evidence you have where HS actually HIRED him.
Just because they have a printed endorsement on their brochure, that certainly does not mean he's an employee.
The endorsement is about his testing and eventually selecting HS stocks to rebuild the FBI's rifles as part of his job at the time he worked for the FBI.

dfletcher
11-26-2008, 2:45 PM
It's a fine product. If your misplaced hatred for Horiuchi is unquenchable, if you feel you absolutely must have a scapegoat for a whole cluster **** of an episode, then I'll be happy to take it off of your hands for you.

OK - mine is @ Contra Costa in Walnut Creek. An L 2000 takedown version in 300 RUM & 375 RUM, scope, mounts, screw on brakes & Pelican included. A modest donation :eek: is requested.

dfletcher
11-26-2008, 2:49 PM
The problem is that his name has become synonymous with Government police action on US citizens, and rightfully so. Terrible move by HS, I'm sending an email and letter and I hope they do something about it.

Perhaps he could switch over and endorse Cooper Rifles. ;)

DrjonesUSA
11-26-2008, 4:08 PM
One additional point to consider:

Imagine an al-Qaeda member with an AK pops out of his home and rushes towards a U.S. military convoy that is laying siege to the place. He stops, then runs back to his house still holding his rifle. As far as I know the rules of engagement say he's fair game as long as he's holding that rifle.

That sounds fair to me, even though it is almost certain that innocent Iraqis have been killed because they were downrange while Coalition forces dealt with a bad guy.

Are U.S. Servicemen to be held responsible for murder? Certainly not.


Apples and oranges, and that's putting it mildly.

You can not compare soldiers shooting terrorists during a time of war to a government attacking its own citizens.

They could have gone and knocked on his door at any time and arrested him peacefully, but that wouldn't have taught anybody a lesson.

trinydex
11-26-2008, 4:12 PM
i watched the documentary. pretty much a botched job at every stage...

DrjonesUSA
11-26-2008, 4:23 PM
i watched the documentary. pretty much a botched job at every stage...


What documentary? On Waco or Ruby?

And neither of them were botched......they ended exactly as they were intended - lots of dead civilians.

trinydex
11-26-2008, 4:30 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4565369222910430105

this documentary. well whatever the intention, it was not what things are "supposed to be"

aileron
11-26-2008, 5:33 PM
One additional point to consider:

Imagine an al-Qaeda member with an AK pops out of his home and rushes towards a U.S. military convoy that is laying siege to the place. He stops, then runs back to his house still holding his rifle. As far as I know the rules of engagement say he's fair game as long as he's holding that rifle.

That sounds fair to me, even though it is almost certain that innocent Iraqis have been killed because they were downrange while Coalition forces dealt with a bad guy.

Are U.S. Servicemen to be held responsible for murder? Certainly not.

Law enforcement and Military operations are not at all the same. Just because they both have guns doesn't mean they play the same game. The business of the police is to arrest not to kill. You de-escalate situations in law enforcement, not show force to escalate situations or get into fights with an enemy. Civilians are not enemies.

trinydex
11-26-2008, 5:34 PM
everyone seems to have a really strong opinion about what went on. what would you guys have done?

aileron
11-26-2008, 5:39 PM
everyone seems to have a really strong opinion about what went on. what would you guys have done?

If he is considered that big a threat ,arrest him on the way into town when he goes shopping. How come that's so hard?

Or knock on his door and arrest him.

Matt C
11-26-2008, 5:41 PM
If he is considered that big a threat ,arrest him on the way into town when he goes shopping. How come that's so hard?

Yup, that's how they got me.

trinydex
11-26-2008, 5:58 PM
well they'd at least have to bring in the swat team right? so they should have brought in the armored truck, stood behind it, got out the shields rushed to the door and knocked, come out with your hands up?

Fjold
11-26-2008, 6:30 PM
I just emailed HS and asked if the next testimonial will be from Lee Harvey Oswald.

workinwifdakids
11-26-2008, 6:33 PM
Perhaps he could switch over and endorse Cooper Rifles.

OJ Simpson could endorse SOG knives. Maybe Scott's fertilizer could make a "McVeigh" line.

ProlificARProspect
11-26-2008, 7:19 PM
Wow. never knew about Ruby Ridge, just Wow.:( just saw the documentary.

This is a very BAD PR move in infact this is True, in par of HS.

dfletcher
11-26-2008, 7:37 PM
I just emailed HS and asked if the next testimonial will be from Lee Harvey Oswald.

Would it go something like this ......?

"Hi, I'm Lee Oswald"

"And I'm Jack Ruby joining my old friend Lee, live in the basement of the
Dallas Police Department"

"Hey Jack you haven't changed a bit - I didn't even see you come in. Well,
it's been quite a few years since our last show"

"Your right Lee - that Saturday morning special was a real hit"

"Always the joker, eh Sparky? Don't mind if I take a few steps back, OK?"

"That's OK, Lee - but anyway, when Olin Winchester called for our 45 year
reunion, I don't know about you, but I just couldn't say no"

"I had a few second thoughts"

"Well you know Lee, I always said we wouldn't be where we are today
without Olin Winchester, right?"

"Speak for yourself, Jack - speak for yourself"


The above conversation is a parody only & all persons living or dead (especially dead) are ficticious.

Shane916
11-27-2008, 10:56 AM
SO splain to us about WACO.
Rio

I haven't studied Waco so I have nothing relevant to say about that.

Shane916
11-27-2008, 10:58 AM
Tuff. Goons are goons...

The wrong people died at Waco and Ruby Ridge....
.

I agree. It's unfortunate any law enforcement died.

Suvorov
11-27-2008, 11:05 AM
I just emailed HS and asked if the next testimonial will be from Lee Harvey Oswald.

Given Lon's record, and the political leanings of most precision shooters, it is hard for me to imagine H-S picking a worse person to endorse their products. You really have to wonder what they were thinking :confused:

eaglemike
11-27-2008, 11:47 AM
I agree. It's unfortunate any law enforcement died.
I never heard or read that any law enforcement personnel died at Ruby Ridge. I could be wrong, as I sometimes suffer from CRS. Can anyone document a law enforcement death at Ruby Ridge?
Edit - I just found it. The story is tragic. The WSJ story June 30, 1995 is pretty interesting.

Quoting the article:

The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14. Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report
By James Bovard
The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.
This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.
While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.
At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."
As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.
Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."
After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.
The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.
The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."
The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."
FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.
Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.
At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)
The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."
The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."
Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[b]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."
The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."
Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.

Hoop
11-27-2008, 2:59 PM
I haven't studied Waco so I have nothing relevant to say about that.

Go read up on Waco & Ruby Ridge and then come back.

pizzatorte
11-27-2008, 3:41 PM
I'm still waiting for either a personal response to my email, or a public statement from H-S Precision clarifying the nature of their public relationship with him. If they're willing to repudiate him, that would satisfy me personally.

If they stand by this public relationship, whatever its nature, I'll be working through the list of distributors on their webpage, letting each of them know how I feel about H-S Precision and suggesting that they consider cutting business ties with them. In particular, I've purchased quite a bit of stuff form Midway and Cabela's, and to a lesser extent Brownell's and Sportsman's Warehouse. I'm not going to go so far as to boycott their distributors, but anyone who does dump their products will earn major points in my book, and I will be sure to tell everyone I know who the players are, and why this matters to me.

BB63Squid
11-27-2008, 8:53 PM
I agree.

Since a lot of individuals hold such animosity towards LE I am not surprised that many of you would side with Randy Weaver and discredit the credibility of any LEO.

If you truly studied this incident and read the reports and facts. You would realize that he is not to blame and the rules of engagement were skewed.

It is an unfortunate incident, but to bash this guy for doing his job as an FBI sniper is rather intolerant.

Then "Intolerant" I am.

Why is that when civilians accidentally shoot someone they are brought up on murder/manslaughter charges but when Feds, BN&E, S.O., L.E. do the same it is somehow the victims fault and an unfortunate situation?

pizzatorte
11-27-2008, 9:21 PM
"Just following orders" went out of style a while ago.

CA_Libertarian
11-28-2008, 7:49 AM
It is an unfortunate incident, but to bash this guy for doing his job as an FBI sniper is rather intolerant.

Are you really going to say that "I was just doing my job" is a good excuse for killing an unarmed person?

Many of our laws and socially accepted police tactics allow LE to routinely violate their fellow citizens' rights. IMO, "just doing my job" is no excuse for the evil done. IMHO, what is right should be more important than a paycheck.

GuyW
11-28-2008, 1:26 PM
I agree. It's unfortunate any law enforcement died.

Not my point, as you well know...

.

50 Shooter
11-28-2008, 1:59 PM
"I was just doing my job" worked for the Nazi's didn't it?:rolleyes:

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long....:confused:

GuyW
11-28-2008, 2:06 PM
"I was just doing my job" worked for the Nazi's didn't it?:rolleyes:

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long....:confused:

Gooberment ALWAYS has its apologists....its probably just coincidental that they "work" for the gooberment...
.

Max-the-Silent
11-28-2008, 5:48 PM
Like I needed a reason to buy McMillian.

http://www.mcmfamily.com/

**** H-S.

ilbob
11-28-2008, 8:04 PM
Its not clear if they hired him as some kind of consultant, paid him to write them a nice letter, or just used a letter he may have gratuitously written.

In any case, what a dumb thing for H-S to do.

ar15barrels
11-28-2008, 8:23 PM
Its not clear if they hired him as some kind of consultant, paid him to write them a nice letter, or just used a letter he may have gratuitously written.

Exactly.
People like to skip over that important little fact...
I'd be willing to bet it was a gratuitous endorsement letter.

pizzatorte
11-28-2008, 9:21 PM
The less exciting but more serious issue raised by the back cover is why was a long-time friend of the owner of a company applying for a government contract in a position to influence the outcome of the contract bidding process? It's completely unethical, if not an outright federal crime.

workinwifdakids
11-28-2008, 9:31 PM
It's completely unethical, if not an outright federal crime.

Well, once you've murdered a defenseless woman while she was holding her infant child...

ar15barrels
11-28-2008, 9:57 PM
The less exciting but more serious issue raised by the back cover is why was a long-time friend of the owner of a company applying for a government contract in a position to influence the outcome of the contract bidding process? It's completely unethical, if not an outright federal crime.

I think they became long-time friends afterwards.
This contract was awarded a long time ago.
This is not something new.

pizzatorte
11-28-2008, 10:02 PM
I think they became long-time friends afterwards.
This contract was awarded a long time ago.
This is not something new.

The contract winner was announced (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_8_49/ai_n6171781) in March '04. That's not my idea of a long time, but who knows.

ar15barrels
11-28-2008, 10:10 PM
The contract winner was announced (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_8_49/ai_n6171781) in March '04. That's not my idea of a long time, but who knows.

As a frame if reference, in 2004, almost nobody in CA knew that we could build AR type rifles with evil features as long as they did not have detatchable magazines.

steadyrock
11-29-2008, 12:59 AM
Exactly.
People like to skip over that important little fact...
I'd be willing to bet it was a gratuitous endorsement letter.

Even if so, it's a gratuitous endorsement letter that H-S is capitalizing on in order to push product. Whether H-S paid for it or not makes no difference whatsoever. They should have sent it straight back to him with a strong letter unequivocally distancing themselves from any statements on his part.

Kestryll
11-29-2008, 1:08 AM
It never ceases to amaze me just how sainted Weaver is on gun forums when few really know anything about him.

Two of the Mods on another forum I moderate knew Randy and Vicky personally and from first hand accounts he was a thief, he STILL owes them money from work done before the Ruby Ridge incident.
As to the reports that he was a white separatist/supremest, not exactly true. One of them was and it wasn't Randy.

Frankly there was a whole lot that was was tragic in what happened at Ruby Ridge but I sure don't consider Randy Weaver to be heroic nor someone I'd hold us as an example.

As for the letter, bad marketing and dumb move no matter what the truth is. In marketing perception is reality and the perception of LH is NOT favorable.

steadyrock
11-29-2008, 2:41 AM
It never ceases to amaze me just how sainted Weaver is on gun forums when few really know anything about him.

Two of the Mods on another forum I moderate knew Randy and Vicky personally and from first hand accounts he was a thief, he STILL owes them money from work done before the Ruby Ridge incident.
As to the reports that he was a white separatist/supremest, not exactly true. One of them was and it wasn't Randy.

Frankly there was a whole lot that was was tragic in what happened at Ruby Ridge but I sure don't consider Randy Weaver to be heroic nor someone I'd hold us as an example.

As for the letter, bad marketing and dumb move no matter what the truth is. In marketing perception is reality and the perception of LH is NOT favorable.


Regardless of your personal feelings about the Weavers, the reason the family is held in such regard is that under fire, they had the courage and the resolve that so many others say they will have (but may not). Here is a man who was clearly set up by the government to be used as a pawn in a larger investigation, and then was subject to a witch hunt when he wouldn't comply. He had the sack to tell the feds to pound sand when they crossed his personal beliefs and then to back that up with real action (essentially, staying put and keeping to himself). Ultimately, the Weaver family paid for their convictions with the lives of Sammy and Vicky and so became lionized as examples of the type of hardcore domestic government abuse that became prevalent during the 1990's.

Suvorov
11-29-2008, 10:21 AM
Exactly.
People like to skip over that important little fact...
I'd be willing to bet it was a gratuitous endorsement letter.

That is probably the case, but still, what the heck was H-S thinking associating that name with them? He is considered a murderer by many of their "civilian" customers and is not thought of too highly by many .mil and .gov types. Really, that guy is poison. Stupid Stupid move by H-S.

ar15barrels
11-29-2008, 2:20 PM
That is probably the case, but still, what the heck was H-S thinking associating that name with them? He is considered a murderer by many of their "civilian" customers and is not thought of too highly by many .mil and .gov types. Really, that guy is poison. Stupid Stupid move by H-S.

I agree it's in really bad taste.
I just think that the whole call for Boycott is out of line if he's not actually a paid employee.

Matt C
11-29-2008, 2:30 PM
If Charter Arms got a positive review from Mark David Chapman, and they printed it, I would never buy from them either. There are other companies and I just don't want to buy from one that would be proud of its association with a murderer. I don't care if they paid him or not, why does that matter?

GuyW
11-29-2008, 2:31 PM
Hey - is he Iggy's cousin??

.

Scout106
11-29-2008, 5:37 PM
I wouldn't have either Horiuchi or Weaver at my table for dinner.

50 Shooter
11-30-2008, 1:05 PM
Here's an email that one of the guys on another forum received from Remington.

tommy.millner@remington.com

"Because its thanksgiving and everyone is off, we have not made contact with HS. We have taken any reference to HS from our web site..

When you first emailed me I honestly did not recall horiuchi's name so you caught me unawares. I also do not read the blogs so the fact there was an issue came as a surpise.

In any event, HS makes a great product and we are a large customer of theirs. Why they would pick a super controversial spokesperson is beyond me. Doing this violates pure business common sense. Early next week we will use whatever persuasive powers at our disposal to get HS to do the right thing..

Do me a favor and tell those on the bolgs that Remington and I are now fully aware of the issue, in full agreement with the outrage, and will do what we can t exert pressure on HS to reverse course.

Thanks

Tommy

BB63Squid
11-30-2008, 1:20 PM
Here's an email that one of the guys on another forum received from Remington.

tommy.millner@remington.com

"Because its thanksgiving and everyone is off, we have not made contact with HS. We have taken any reference to HS from our web site..

When you first emailed me I honestly did not recall horiuchi's name so you caught me unawares. I also do not read the blogs so the fact there was an issue came as a surpise.

In any event, HS makes a great product and we are a large customer of theirs. Why they would pick a super controversial spokesperson is beyond me. Doing this violates pure business common sense. Early next week we will use whatever persuasive powers at our disposal to get HS to do the right thing..

Do me a favor and tell those on the bolgs that Remington and I are now fully aware of the issue, in full agreement with the outrage, and will do what we can t exert pressure on HS to reverse course.

Thanks

Tommy

I was not honestly expecting that type of a response from any mfg. Rem gets points for merely responding.

pizzatorte
11-30-2008, 1:49 PM
I just picked up a Rem 700 with an H-S Precision stock. I went from being thrilled to disgusted to pretty darn pleased. I hope Tommy at Remington has the pull to keep Remington on this course of action.

motorhead
12-01-2008, 9:57 AM
lon horiuchi is at best the most incompetant sniper on the planet and at worst a murderer. the entire fbi hrt should get a special keystone gestapo award.
word has it he was hired as payback for recommending them for the fbi contract. there's a photoshopped version of their "trophy room" page with vicky weaver's photo that's up on other sites. i didn't post here 'cause i didn't think it would be appropriate. seems i was correct, this is the only site i've found people defending horiuchi's actions.

steadyrock
12-01-2008, 10:54 AM
lon horiuchi is at best the most incompetant sniper on the planet and at worst a murderer. the entire fbi hrt should get a special keystone gestapo award.
word has it he was hired as payback for recommending them for the fbi contract. there's a photoshopped version of their "trophy room" page with vicky weaver's photo that's up on other sites. i didn't post here 'cause i didn't think it would be appropriate. seems i was correct, this is the only site i've found people defending horiuchi's actions.

That's because the people here defending Horiuchi's actions haven't bothered to educate themselves with the facts of the situation. Vicky Weaver was standing behind a door at the time she was shot, but the bullet passed through a window in that door before it entered her head and caused her baby daughter to be covered with glass shards, fragments of jawbone and pieces of brain. I've racked my brain trying to figure out how a trained FBI sniper could not see Vicky's head through the WINDOW she was standing behind and I can't come up with any way other than criminal negligence or (as I believe was the case) cold blooded murder for leverage.

Also not mentioned in this thread is the sadistic way the FBI behaved during the days after Vicky's slaying, while Randy, Sara and Elishiba were holed up in the cabin. Several accounts (including Sara's) have it that they placed a phone on the front porch, and when they called it they would shout through a bullhorn "Vicky! Vicky! Tell Randy to come out and answer the phone! Vicky!" knowing all the while they had killed her days before.

akjunkie
12-01-2008, 11:38 AM
Hey - is he Iggy's cousin??

.

Nope. one's chinese, the other japanese.

wait, i take that back............................WW2 comfort women??

yeh, they could be cousins.

murder, negligence, homocide, just following orders......... dont they call that "Collateral Damage" nowadays.

Sgt Raven
12-01-2008, 1:20 PM
I was not honestly was not expecting that type of a response from any mfg. Rem gets points for merely responding.

I'm not surprised at all, Remington has learned and doesn't want to be "Zumbo'd" by this. ;)

ar15barrels
12-01-2008, 2:09 PM
Also not mentioned in this thread is the sadistic way the FBI behaved during the days after Vicky's slaying, while Randy, Sara and Elishiba were holed up in the cabin. Several accounts (including Sara's) have it that they placed a phone on the front porch, and when they called it they would shout through a bullhorn "Vicky! Vicky! Tell Randy to come out and answer the phone! Vicky!" knowing all the while they had killed her days before.

Yeah, the psycological stuff they did was prett f'd up.
I'm guessing that the whole plan was to just kill them all so none of that stuff would come to be known.

That plan worked in Waco...

workinwifdakids
12-02-2008, 8:13 PM
That plan worked in Waco...

Absolutely right. Whatever his crimes, the United States government shed innocent blood, and then danced in it. They laughed about it, knowing nothing they did would ever face the light of day, and they were calmed by the fact that they would never face charges for what they did to him and his family. If you're reading this, and don't know about the psychological warfare carried out in Waco in advance of the murder of those children, I encourage you to educate yourself.

Wolfpack331
12-09-2008, 9:32 PM
Sorry but until you have been behind the glass you dont know what its like.
This is a crazy world and bad stuff happens. Accidents happen.
There is no time machine. You cant unpull the trigger. You also cant dwell on what happens in combat or in the line of duty.
I learned all about that engagement and others in S - school, and experienced even more in tours overseas.
In cases like that, everyone loses one way or another.

bwiese
12-09-2008, 9:40 PM
In cases like that, everyone loses one way or another.

So Vicki Weaver & baby lose their lives, and Lon Horiuchi gets what?

He's still alive and getting a pension and is currently stealing valuable oxygen.

pizzatorte
12-09-2008, 11:26 PM
Sorry but until you have been behind the glass you dont know what its like.
This is a crazy world and bad stuff happens. Accidents happen.
There is no time machine. You cant unpull the trigger. You also cant dwell on what happens in combat or in the line of duty.
I learned all about that engagement and others in S - school, and experienced even more in tours overseas.
In cases like that, everyone loses one way or another.

This sort of fallacious appeal to authority is pretty offensive under the circumstances. By your logic, we should just do away with juries and trials altogether, since no one can really know anything. This was no ****ing accident, and Horiuchi didn't lose a bloody thing.

Ford8N
12-10-2008, 5:37 AM
Sorry but until you have been behind the glass you dont know what its like.
This is a crazy world and bad stuff happens. Accidents happen.
There is no time machine. You cant unpull the trigger. You also cant dwell on what happens in combat or in the line of duty.
I learned all about that engagement and others in S - school, and experienced even more in tours overseas.
In cases like that, everyone loses one way or another.

I agree, accidents happen. In the bigger picture people are upset because this was Government incompetents and enforcement of unconstitutional gun law. His family had to die for some gun law. Actually if I remember, about 1/4" of steel. Is that why innocent people have to die? Is a 1/4" of steel in Idaho going to cause the crime wave in the inner city ghetto? LH is really just a pawn of the Brady group and their minions in Washington.

...and now those minions are the new rulers in Washington.:eek:

BB63Squid
12-10-2008, 5:43 AM
Sorry but until you have been behind the glass you dont know what its like.
This is a crazy world and bad stuff happens. Accidents happen.
There is no time machine. You cant unpull the trigger. You also cant dwell on what happens in combat or in the line of duty.
I learned all about that engagement and others in S - school, and experienced even more in tours overseas.
In cases like that, everyone loses one way or another.

I don't believe what the Weaver's lost VS what Lon Horuchi lost are comparable.

Secondly this was in the United States not foreign soil (war zone), mistakes are not acceptable, so this also can not be considered combat.

White Rose
12-10-2008, 8:00 AM
Lon Horiuchi is pure EVIL. He represents everything that is disgusting about humanity. His a pure KILLER/MURDERER that will murder for the state - NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

We used to despise these killers, bounty hunters, and torturers - nowadays they get gubmint jobs and are considered heroes.

We have come a long way. Bye-bye USA.

White Rose
12-10-2008, 8:01 AM
I wouldn't have either Horiuchi or Weaver at my table for dinner.

That is because you don't know Randy.

White Rose
12-10-2008, 8:34 AM
I agree.


If you truly studied this incident and read the reports and facts. You would realize that he is not to blame and the rules of engagement were skewed.


That is so INTOLERABLY false. Each and every person is responsible for his actions, period. HE is responsible because HE made the shot. I don't care about any "circumstances," "rules of engagement," "orders" or the classic "I was scared" crap. You can put whatever spin on it you would like, but he is a murderer pure and simple.

I vas juist fallowink ooorders.

White Rose
12-10-2008, 8:39 AM
In cases like that, everyone loses one way or another.

B.S., I haven't seen dear ol' Lon lose anything.

dfletcher
12-10-2008, 9:05 AM
Just curious, how can an organization such as the military - which is based on following orders to include doing things that will result in your death, the death of your fellow soldiers and the death of civilians, not permit an "I was following orders" defense? The whole system functions on following orders to include ones you don't like or don't understand, or else.

I realize the Nazis and Japanese made an abomination of the whole "following orders" principle, but as Lemay and Bob MacNamara observed after WWII ended, if we'd lost alot of out guys would have been in the same fix. Could Colonel Tibbetts have refused to bomb Hiroshima or any one of the 8th Army Air Corp pilots refused to carpet bomb Germany? If they had refused wouldn't they have been court martialed? That's the choice to be made - war criminal or court martial?

Years ago my CO answered an NCO's rhetorical question about following orders with respect to being ordered to jump off a bridge. "You come to me" he said, "but you better be wet when you do".

White Rose
12-10-2008, 9:13 AM
Just curious, how can an organization such as the military - which is based on following orders to include doing things that will result in your death, the death of your fellow soldiers and the death of civilians, not permit an "I was following orders" defense? The whole system functions on following orders to include ones you don't like or don't understand, or else.

I realize the Nazis and Japanese made an abomination of the whole "following orders" principle, but as Lemay and Bob MacNamara observed after WWII ended, if we'd lost alot of out guys would have been in the same fix. Could Colonel Tibbetts have refused to bomb Hiroshima or any one of the 8th Army Air Corp pilots refused to carpet bomb Germany? If they had refused wouldn't they have been court martialed? That's the choice to be made - war criminal or court martial?

Years ago my CO answered an NCO's rhetorical question about following orders with respect to being ordered to jump off a bridge. "You come to me" he said, "but you better be wet when you do".

This is a very deeply moral question, and HAS to be consistent in all circumstances. Does one have the right to murder another person even if he has a gun pointed at his head telling him to do so? The answer is a resounding NO. Just because someone IS going to murder you does not give you the right to murder someone else, period. That may be hard to accept, but it is the moral truth.

dfletcher
12-10-2008, 9:50 AM
This is a very deeply moral question, and HAS to be consistent in all circumstances. Does one have the right to murder another person even if he has a gun pointed at his head telling him to do so? The answer is a resounding NO. Just because someone IS going to murder you does not give you the right to murder someone else, period. That may be hard to accept, but it is the moral truth.


I'll agree on that, but that's a different set of circumstances than following orders. Let's absent the "gun to your head" from the scenario and propose that your CO has merely ordered you to shoot someone and you (the NCO or Private) perceive that person to be no threat or a non - combatant. You refuse or do you comply? If you shoot and the person is not a threat, you're on the hook. If you do not shoot and the person was a threat - it's court martial time.

From one of my favorite movies, I think the 1st scene with Sean Connery puts an interesting spin on the concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX_Yq8u3X6s

Wolfpack331
12-10-2008, 10:05 AM
I am not defending anybody. I am just saying, You werent there.
Maybe it was murder, maybe it was a conspiracy. So do you blame everyone that wears a badge? Or sits behind the glass? It is never as easy as people think. Ever heard of the fatal funnel?
..and warzone is no different. Justifiable homicide.

White Rose
12-10-2008, 1:41 PM
If you shoot and the person is not a threat, you're on the hook. If you do not shoot and the person was a threat - it's court martial time.

Still not an excuse. In my opinion NO matter what happens (or the threat of something happening) to one person, he still does NOT have the right to kill the other person. It doesn't matter what kind of scenario nor circumstance you paint.

White Rose
12-10-2008, 1:48 PM
I am not defending anybody. I am just saying, You werent there.
Maybe it was murder, maybe it was a conspiracy. So do you blame everyone that wears a badge?

Of course not, EACH AND EVERY person is individually responsible for EVERY action he takes.

It is never as easy as people think. Ever heard of the fatal funnel?
..and warzone is no different. Justifiable homicide.Yes it is easy. It is what happens to you after you take the moral stand that is the hard thing to take. Believe me, I know, I took a moral stand 4 years ago and paid a VERY HEAVY price. I've been through the grinder.

I will be happy to give the narrative. It will be long. I even have the wonderful and gloriously gory crime scene photos of what my wife and I went through. I can post those for you. However, there some things I can't say under court order. You know that 1st amendment doesn't apply to me, it only applies to gubmint and their sycophants.

dfletcher
12-11-2008, 8:52 AM
Still not an excuse. In my opinion NO matter what happens (or the threat of something happening) to one person, he still does NOT have the right to kill the other person. It doesn't matter what kind of scenario nor circumstance you paint.


One person killing another (we are discussing on a battlefield, not US city streets) is not my issue nor why I asked the question, so whether I'd agree with you in theory or application, not sure. My interest is the system used by virtually all military organizations which function on a system of rank and orders and a requirement that those of lesser rank follow the orders of those with greater rank.

Orders rountinely involve killing others, taking actions which sometimes can and will get your fellow soldiers or yourself killed. Orders - at least when I took and gave them - are often given under chaotic conditions, without explanation and without the person carrying them out knowing why they may be doing what they are doing. I am inclined to hold responsible the person who issued the order rather than the person who carried out the order.

To withhold an "I was just carrying out orders" defense from a soldier of lesser rank requires, it seems to me, that he must be afforded the opportunity to determine if the order he has been given is a lawful order - in effect, the soldier of lesser rank is afforded the authority to determine if the soldier of greater rank is lawful. That is what we do in the US military, at least when I was in - is that desireable? Is an A1C going to tell his Tech Sgt - whose been telling him what to do since day one - "No Sarge, can't do that"?

I don't have a definite opinion on much of this, but giving a soldier only a choice between disobeying an order or courts martial for for some type of war crime does not seem ideal.

ar15barrels
12-11-2008, 9:03 AM
I don't have a definite opinion on much of this, but giving a soldier only a choice between disobeying an order or courts martial for for some type of war crime does not seem ideal.

The court marshall can also clear the soldier of wrong doing if he justifies his behavior as disobeying an illegal order.

dfletcher
12-11-2008, 9:26 AM
The court marshall can also clear the soldier of wrong doing if he justifies his behavior as disobeying an illegal order.

Certainly, but let's face it - if an Lt goes to courts martial for disobeying an order from a Lt Col even if he's found not guilty there's a good chance his career is done. No bird or star in his future, same for NCO.

Suvorov
12-11-2008, 9:51 AM
Found on www.comeandtakeit.com.

It is said that the first casualty of war is truth, and the sad irony is that many times otherwise "good" people do horrendous things. Certainly H-S made a bone headed move to use Lon's name in an advertisement, but this is at least a glimpse of him that I have not seen before. Not saying I agree with this portrayal of him, I've never met the man and have only to go on 2nd and 3rd hand evidence. He certainly committed a horrible act, the question is why?

IN DEFENSE OF LON HORIUCHI

by Joseph Sobran

Washington, February 9---A few weeks ago I wrote a column about Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sharpshooter of whom I said I knew only that he had shot a mother in the head as she held her baby---and that he had done it for his government. I surmised that Mr. Horiuchi was a product of a public educational system that instills a code of mindless obedience to the state.

To my shock and mortification, this account has been challenged by friends of Mr. Horiuchi---who are also estimable friends and acquaintances of mine. In fairness I will cite the version of events and the description of Mr. Horiuchi I've received from Jeffrey Rubin, whom I've known for a decade as a devout, honest and utterly reliable man. He attests that my inferences are "utterly, horribly false to Lon Horiuchi," who he says bears no resemblance to "the secularized, government-worshipping zombie" I imagined.

As you may recall, Lon Horiuchi was part of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team that was assigned to capture Randy Weaver, the political dissident and recluse who had holed up in a cabin in Idaho with his family, where they were joined by a friend. During the ensuing siege, a federal marshal and Mr. Weaver's son were killed. Then the FBI unit was sent in, Mrs. Weaver was killed, and Mr. Weaver was finally arrested and tried, eventually winning acquittal on the original charges that had incurred the siege in the first place, though he was convicted on lesser counts.

Civil libertarians of the left and libertarians of the right still wonder why Mr. Weaver should have been a target of the federal government at all. Be that as it may, Mr. Horiuchi came into this drama in the middle stages, presumably believing the official story (later disproved in court) that Mr. Weaver's group had started the gunfight in which the marshal was killed. His friends contend plausibly that he assumed he was dealing with murderous fanatics.

Mr. Horiuchi insisted later that he had killed Mrs. Weaver by accident. For what it's worth, the government's own investigation eventually cleared him of intentionally shooting her. It means more to me that people like Jeffrey Rubin believe him. Whatever the full truth may be, Mr. Horiuchi and his family are paying dearly for the affair; they face civil and criminal lawsuits, social ostracism, and the public obloquy to which my column has contributed its part.

I hate to think I may have compounded the suffering of a man who acted in good faith and didn't mean to hurt the innocent. In one respect, I know I misjudged Mr. Horiuchi's character: He is anything but an unethical servant of the state that employs him.

According to Jeff Rubin, Mr. Horiuchi is a devout Catholic (an adult convert) and an ardent conservative. He has deep reservations about the federal government itself. He and his wife consider abortion a horror and

hope he won't be assigned to protect abortion clinics. They school their children at home, because, as Mr. Rubin puts it, "their view of the public school system is such that they would sooner put their kids into the public sewer system."

In short, Mr. Horiuchi's view of the U.S. government, in some respects, is strikingly like Randy Weaver's. But he accepts the government, for all its faults, as essentially legitimate. And that point of difference led to a horrible tragedy that has marred both men's lives.

Here is ghastly evidence that curbing the power of the federal government is more than an exercise in constitutional pedantry. The power of the state is ultimately the power to kill. The reasons and conditions of that power must be extremely sound and clear, and the restraints on it must be so powerful as to daunt any official who may be tempted to abuse it. Those who are assigned to enforce it are entitled to assurance that they are acting justly.

Reprehensibly as the government has acted in the Weaver case, I shouldn't have made Lon Horiuchi the eponym of its persecution. His heart-rending story should stand as a lesson to anyone contemplating a career in federal law enforcement in an age when the federal government knows no limits.

---Joseph Sobran, Copyright 1995, Universal Press Syndicate

[Editor's note: Let's assume Mr. H is the good fellow Sobran paints him to be (which may or may not be the case). Mr. Horiuchi is evidence of the evils even good people will commit when they blindly follow their government. If Mr. Horiuchi really had all those "deep reservations about the federal government," why did he blindly follow orders to shoot people on sight? Why didn't he object to those orders like some of the others did? Mr. Horiuchi failed one of the most important safeguards against a tyrannical government: which is for the law enforcers to refuse to carry out evil laws or orders.

It's safe to conclude that even good (???) people can be manipulated into smashing citizens and their rights, unless those citizens are continuously alert and instantaneously refuse to participate in unconstitutional or evil acts.

Perhaps we could even compare Lon Horiuchi to Tim McVeigh. Both wanted to help their country, and perhaps they both started out on the right track, but in the end they did the wrong thing in the wrong way, and because of what they did, neither of them can any longer be considered a good person. (Apologies to Mr. Sobran who stated the contrary, at least about Lon Horiuchi.) Of course, if either wanted to join the ranks of good people, they could start by confessing what they did, admit they were wrong, and ask the wronged parties--the families involved, and the entire nation--to forgive them.

Kestryll
12-11-2008, 10:06 AM
That is because you don't know Randy.

So how well do you know Randy Weaver?
How well did you know his Wife and kids?

I wouldn't have him to dinner because the people I know that did know them all personally, were ripped off by him, and still know family members wouldn't

So where do you know the family from?

White Rose
12-11-2008, 1:23 PM
So how well do you know Randy Weaver?
How well did you know his Wife and kids?

I wouldn't have him to dinner because the people I know that did know them all personally, were ripped off by him, and still know family members wouldn't

So where do you know the family from?

I will make this brief, because you asked

I didn't know him before the incident, but I got to know him and Sara while I was working for Mr. Spence for a year and a half.

In general they were very nice people. Do they have some crazy world views? Yes, but so do most people. Maybe he did "rip-off" your friends, but that doesn't matter to me as I know nothing more than your post about it. It only matters to you and your friends.

Kestryll
12-11-2008, 2:07 PM
I will make this brief, because you asked

I didn't know him before the incident, but I got to know him and Sara while I was working for Mr. Spence for a year and a half.

In general they were very nice people. Do they have some crazy world views? Yes, but so do most people. Maybe he did "rip-off" your friends, but that doesn't matter to me as I know nothing more than your post about it. It only matters to you and your friends.

True, it does only matter to us, however that was kind of the gist of the post you replied to wasn't it?
I wouldn't have either Horiuchi or Weaver at my table for dinner.

That is because you don't know Randy.
Scout posted his opinion and you commented that his view was due to unfamiliarity with the Weavers.
I stated that having known people VERY familiar with them prior to the event I would agree with Scout106 even with a point of reference closer then Scout.

Which again really goes to the comment 'It only matters to you and your friends'. Don't all the comments?

Your fondness really only matters to you.
My, Scout's and my friends wariness really only matters to us.

So perhaps it's not because he doesn't know Randy after all...

White Rose
12-11-2008, 2:49 PM
My, Scout's and my friends wariness really only matters to us.
So perhaps it's not because he doesn't know Randy after all...

That is not the real point here. The point is you can't judge a book by it cover; by what you THINK you know. He was making a statement with NO personal information that you (only very slightly personal) or I would have. Plus you are actually operating on hearsay. That is perfectly OK, but then you have to trust what someone else says. I don't know how well you know the people that know Randy, and I don't know if it is actually true or not, but you do not know him.

This is no different than someone who is anti-gun/gun owner, but knows nothing about them.

mbee1776
11-06-2016, 11:35 AM
One additional point to consider:

Are U.S. Servicemen to be held responsible for murder? Certainly not.

Are you really comparing a foreign war's ROE to that of domestic law enforcement?

Trriemferent
11-06-2016, 11:49 AM
Are you really comparing a foreign war's ROE to that of domestic law enforcement?

Are you really reviving a 8 yo thread

mbee1776
11-06-2016, 11:20 PM
Are you really reviving a 8 yo thread

Obviously, Fudd.

DrjonesUSA
11-07-2016, 6:17 AM
SUCH a coincidence...Janet Reno died today!!!!




.

AregularGuy
11-07-2016, 6:25 AM
Rise from your grave!!!!

(Can't seem to get the youtube embedding to work, very embarrassing)


https://youtu.be/hihEhsdwiIk

Crazed_SS
11-07-2016, 9:34 AM
Are you really reviving a 8 yo thread

lol I didnt realize the date until just now...


Oh well.. what I got from this is the Weaver's dindu nuffin.

Pofoo
11-07-2016, 3:54 PM
I certainly wasn't at Ruby Ridge. My information is limited to what I read from those who were there.

You can argue that both sides have a stake in spinning the truth. The "Government murdered unarmed citizens" arguement gets a lot of press, and likely has some truth to it.

There are other, less publicized accounts that say there were three persons armed with rifles who emerged from the cabin. They rushed towards the tree line. They then turned and ran back into the cabin. An FBI sniper fired two shots in an attempt to prevent the armed individuals from gaining sanctuary in the cabin. One of those shots penetrated the door and killed Vicki Weaver inside.

I don't know what the rules of engagement were. Was there immediate threat to life? Perhaps not. Were they a threat? Hey, someone rushes me with a rifle, I'm taking the shot.

Do not forget that a Marshal's Service Agent had been shot and killed trying to serve a warrant on Randy Weaver for selling short barrel shotguns without the necessary permits. Randy Weaver, by the way, had affiliations with the Aryan Nations. Not quite the poster boy some would make him out to be. Again, even in this first conflict leading to "Ruby Ridge", there is abiguity about who shot first, etc.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong. Just pointing out that there are two sides to every story.

So much wrong here /\.
I followed this situation as it happened and really scrutinized the post shooting reports. I believe the above is way out of line with the truth.