Unsure why they used tanks and hundreds of people to serve a warrant when David K offered to allow them in to search for the years proceeding. There was never any sexual abuse charges, just allegations. They even talked to David K about the machine gun allegations once, and he showed them a hellfire device which simulates automatic firing. As far as I can tell no one ever got charged with possession of a machine gun.
Waco - Crazy Cult or Government Murders?
- Thread starter Carthoris
- Start date
Unsure why they used tanks and hundreds of people to serve a warrant when David K offered to allow them in to search for the years proceeding. There was never any sexual abuse charges, just allegations. They even talked to David K about the machine gun allegations once, and he showed them a hellfire device which simulates automatic firing. As far as I can tell no one ever got charged with possession of a machine gun.
The important thing to note about that warrant is there is absolutely no proof to base the warrant on even in the warrant, just opinions of what could be happening. It is like getting a warrant to search your house because you bought a 1000w HPS lamp online by assuming you are growing marijuana. You know, illegal and unconstitutional.
Something I never really knew before I started reading about it again. They had been there on that property since 1935 as a religious organization. 60 years almost.
Also, the ATF went through the yard of the house and killed their dogs using m16s before they came to the door.
I think this is a pretty good point on who shot first at the door.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/waco.php#axzz1GOmc12Jq
A conspiracy is when someone says something crazy that is unlikely, a cover-up is when the government does something and tries to hide it. If there was ever a cover-up for something the government did, Mt Carmel was it.
Before the attack by Government forces Koresh was interviewed, the one where he jokingly said he was god if he could impregnate a 75 year old woman, he was also asked how many wives he had and if he committed adultery. His answer was he had 1 wife, and had never committed adultery.
A few other facts.
14 was the legal age to get married and have sex in Texas at the time. The sheriff stated that while it was messed up, most of the allegations were of girls 14 or older, and that the parents were there and so consented to it. He pretty much said it was a common law marriage and not illegal even if it was true. I am not oking a 14 year old getting married or having sex with an adult - but that was the law.
ATF has no legal authority over rapes, molestation, or anything else like that. The ATF attack was based solely on the theory that they MIGHT have guns/explosives they weren't supposed to have. Koresh sold guns and inert grenades at gun shows, as well as through a dealer. The ATF contacted the dealer and he called Koresh with the ATF present and Koresh said the ATF agents could come to Mt Carmel and he would let them inspect the guns. The agents declined to check the guns out.
Koresh knew the informant was an ATF agent from the beginning. He sang for him, played the guitar, and then made him watch a gun propaganda about how the ATF was assholes. The informant never saw anything illegal. The only illegal things he even heard of was from 3rd party sources who were at odds with Koresh.
The entire warrant is summed up in the following sentence "I believe that Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh and/or his followers who reside at the compound known locally as the Mt. Carmel Center are unlawfully manufacturing and possessing machine guns and explosive devices."
If a cop goes to a judge and says "I believe that (insert your name here) is growing marijuana because he bought HPS lamps, and I want a warrant", what will happen? 1) The judge will not grant a warrant unless he is willing to do it unlawfully. 2) The case will be thrown out if you get a lawyer unless they have evidence that you were actually growing even if they find marijuana. So, even if they had found hundreds of machine guns (they didnt) they would of had to throw out the charges in the long run.
Absent a no-knock warrant, U.S. law (Title 18, U.S.C. 3109) states that an officer must give notice of his legal authority and purpose before attempting to enter the premises to be searched. Only if admittance is refused after giving such notice is it legal for an officer to use force to gain entry. They did not have a no-knock warrant, and they ran up to the house throwing concussion grenades. This is an attack with an explosive device. The Davidians were well within their legal rights to shoot at the police at that time, even though the evidence shows they had not.
On another note, the 4 ATF agents who died at Waco had all been Bill Clintons body guards. Three of them died while storming a window. In the ATF video you see the 3 going in through a window, a moment later you see a 4th ATF agent throw a grenade through the window and begin shooting a machine gun wildly through the window without looking.
Im guessing serving a search warrant through a second story window is ATF policy?
Also, the ATF went through the yard of the house and killed their dogs using m16s before they came to the door.
I think this is a pretty good point on who shot first at the door.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/waco.php#axzz1GOmc12Jq
A conspiracy is when someone says something crazy that is unlikely, a cover-up is when the government does something and tries to hide it. If there was ever a cover-up for something the government did, Mt Carmel was it.
Before the attack by Government forces Koresh was interviewed, the one where he jokingly said he was god if he could impregnate a 75 year old woman, he was also asked how many wives he had and if he committed adultery. His answer was he had 1 wife, and had never committed adultery.
A few other facts.
14 was the legal age to get married and have sex in Texas at the time. The sheriff stated that while it was messed up, most of the allegations were of girls 14 or older, and that the parents were there and so consented to it. He pretty much said it was a common law marriage and not illegal even if it was true. I am not oking a 14 year old getting married or having sex with an adult - but that was the law.
ATF has no legal authority over rapes, molestation, or anything else like that. The ATF attack was based solely on the theory that they MIGHT have guns/explosives they weren't supposed to have. Koresh sold guns and inert grenades at gun shows, as well as through a dealer. The ATF contacted the dealer and he called Koresh with the ATF present and Koresh said the ATF agents could come to Mt Carmel and he would let them inspect the guns. The agents declined to check the guns out.
Koresh knew the informant was an ATF agent from the beginning. He sang for him, played the guitar, and then made him watch a gun propaganda about how the ATF was assholes. The informant never saw anything illegal. The only illegal things he even heard of was from 3rd party sources who were at odds with Koresh.
The entire warrant is summed up in the following sentence "I believe that Vernon Howell, aka David Koresh and/or his followers who reside at the compound known locally as the Mt. Carmel Center are unlawfully manufacturing and possessing machine guns and explosive devices."
If a cop goes to a judge and says "I believe that (insert your name here) is growing marijuana because he bought HPS lamps, and I want a warrant", what will happen? 1) The judge will not grant a warrant unless he is willing to do it unlawfully. 2) The case will be thrown out if you get a lawyer unless they have evidence that you were actually growing even if they find marijuana. So, even if they had found hundreds of machine guns (they didnt) they would of had to throw out the charges in the long run.
Absent a no-knock warrant, U.S. law (Title 18, U.S.C. 3109) states that an officer must give notice of his legal authority and purpose before attempting to enter the premises to be searched. Only if admittance is refused after giving such notice is it legal for an officer to use force to gain entry. They did not have a no-knock warrant, and they ran up to the house throwing concussion grenades. This is an attack with an explosive device. The Davidians were well within their legal rights to shoot at the police at that time, even though the evidence shows they had not.
On another note, the 4 ATF agents who died at Waco had all been Bill Clintons body guards. Three of them died while storming a window. In the ATF video you see the 3 going in through a window, a moment later you see a 4th ATF agent throw a grenade through the window and begin shooting a machine gun wildly through the window without looking.
Im guessing serving a search warrant through a second story window is ATF policy?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not at all.
try to shoot at a cop that is trying to serve a warrant, legal or not, and tell me what happens. actually, i'll just read about it in the obituary section.
if the warrant was not legal and they had nothing to hide, why fucking shoot at them? why not take it to court or sue them for serving an illegal warrant?
besides, as i remember they were modifying firearms in an illegal fashion and the feds knew it. i don't remember if they actually found the modified firearms but i seem to remember that they did.
lesson here: don't shoot at cops unless you want to die.
The law basically says you can shoot a cop using undue force to serve a warrant. Grenades is considered undue force.
They did not have modified guns. They can think you have a house full of whatever, that doesn't mean they are allowed to search your house without evidence that you have it before hand. 3 years and they had no evidence except "I think they are"
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Title 18, U.S.C. 3109
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a
search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he
is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a
person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.
Former senior ATF official, "Irrespective of the situation inside, the notice of authority and purpose must be given... Unless the occupants of a dwelling are made aware that the persons attempting to enter have legal authority and a legal warrant to enter, the occupants have every right to defend themselves..."
2672. Lawful Performance: Resisting Unlawful Arrest With Force
The defendant is not guilty of the crime of (battery against a peace officer[,]/ [or] assault against a peace officer[,]/ [or] assault with (force likely to produce great bodily injury/a deadly weapon/a firearm/a semiautomatic firearm/a machine gun/an assault weapon) against a peace officer[,]/ [or] <insert other crime charged, e.g., resisting arrest>) if the officer was not lawfully performing (his/her) duties because (he/she) was unlawfully arresting someone.
However, even if the arrest was unlawful, as long as the officer used only reasonable force to accomplish the arrest, the defendant may be guilty of the lesser crime of (battery[,]/ [or] assault[,]/ [or] assault with (force likely to produce great bodily injury/a deadly weapon/a firearm/a semiautomatic firearm/a machine gun/an assault weapon)).
On the other hand, if the officer used unreasonable or excessive force, and the defendant used only reasonable force in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), then the defendant is not guilty of the lesser crime of (battery[,]/ [or] assault[,]/ [or] assault with (force likely to produce great bodily injury/a deadly weapon/a firearm/a semiautomatic firearm/a machine gun/an assault weapon)).
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was lawfully performing (his/her) duties. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty [of <insert crimes>].
Bench Notes
Instructional Duty
The court may give this instruction on request.
Authority
No Right to Forcibly Resist Arrest. Pen. Code, � 834a.
Applies to Arrest, Not Detention. People v. Coffey (1967) 67 Cal.2d 204, 221 [60 Cal.Rptr. 457, 430 P.2d 15]; People v. Jones (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 710, 717 [87 Cal.Rptr. 625].
Forcible Resistance to Unlawful Arrest Is Battery or Assault on Nonofficer. People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347, 355-356 [74 Cal.Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33]; People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161, 166 [161 Cal.Rptr. 541].
Use of Reasonable Force in Response to Excessive Force Is Complete Defense. People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161, 168 [161 Cal.Rptr. 541].
May Not Be Convicted of Resisting Unlawful Arrest. People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161, 166 [161 Cal.Rptr. 541]; People v. Moreno (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10 [108 Cal.Rptr. 338].
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif002.pdf
These are all cases where a cop was resisted and sometimes killed because they were acting unlawfully, and the person was not charged.
If you didn't realize it, the survivors from waco were not charged with murder(The jury came back not guilty on every count of murder) because they were acting in self defense per the jury.
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a
search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he
is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a
person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.
Former senior ATF official, "Irrespective of the situation inside, the notice of authority and purpose must be given... Unless the occupants of a dwelling are made aware that the persons attempting to enter have legal authority and a legal warrant to enter, the occupants have every right to defend themselves..."
2672. Lawful Performance: Resisting Unlawful Arrest With Force
The defendant is not guilty of the crime of (battery against a peace officer[,]/ [or] assault against a peace officer[,]/ [or] assault with (force likely to produce great bodily injury/a deadly weapon/a firearm/a semiautomatic firearm/a machine gun/an assault weapon) against a peace officer[,]/ [or] <insert other crime charged, e.g., resisting arrest>) if the officer was not lawfully performing (his/her) duties because (he/she) was unlawfully arresting someone.
However, even if the arrest was unlawful, as long as the officer used only reasonable force to accomplish the arrest, the defendant may be guilty of the lesser crime of (battery[,]/ [or] assault[,]/ [or] assault with (force likely to produce great bodily injury/a deadly weapon/a firearm/a semiautomatic firearm/a machine gun/an assault weapon)).
On the other hand, if the officer used unreasonable or excessive force, and the defendant used only reasonable force in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), then the defendant is not guilty of the lesser crime
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was lawfully performing (his/her) duties. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty [of <insert crimes>].
Bench Notes
Instructional Duty
The court may give this instruction on request.
Authority
No Right to Forcibly Resist Arrest. Pen. Code, � 834a.
Applies to Arrest, Not Detention. People v. Coffey (1967) 67 Cal.2d 204, 221 [60 Cal.Rptr. 457, 430 P.2d 15]; People v. Jones (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 710, 717 [87 Cal.Rptr. 625].
Forcible Resistance to Unlawful Arrest Is Battery or Assault on Nonofficer. People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347, 355-356 [74 Cal.Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33]; People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161, 166 [161 Cal.Rptr. 541].
Use of Reasonable Force in Response to Excessive Force Is Complete Defense. People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161, 168 [161 Cal.Rptr. 541].
May Not Be Convicted of Resisting Unlawful Arrest. People v. White (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 161, 166 [161 Cal.Rptr. 541]; People v. Moreno (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10 [108 Cal.Rptr. 338].
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/justif002.pdf
These are all cases where a cop was resisted and sometimes killed because they were acting unlawfully, and the person was not charged.
If you didn't realize it, the survivors from waco were not charged with murder(The jury came back not guilty on every count of murder) because they were acting in self defense per the jury.
For reference, no one thinks reasonable force to serve a search warrant that they are supposed to knock and announce themselves for first is not lobbing grenades, murdering a yard full of dogs, and breaking windows in and jumping into them with machine guns blazing.
