Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Claude Dallas getting out in Feb!

Interesting thread. If nothing else, it settles the question of whether or not I'll carry a sidearm if I decide to bowhunt this year, which is now legal to do in Oregon.

Isn't "Big Brother" watching this whole thread right now... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In both cases, the Feds could EASILY have arrested Weaver and Koresh without any loss of life......instead, they chose to grandstand and people died.......for that, someone in power should pay dearly!

I'm not so sure about Waco.
I was watching a specail the other night and was suprised to find out that during the siege at Waco, ATF and FBI officers didn't shoot one round, while at the same time hundreds of shots were fired at them. Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me.
At that point I don't think you just walk away and let them be.
I feel for the kids in that compound, but I feel Koresh is to blame for the whole mess, not the "jack booted thugs".

"I was watching a specail the other night and was suprised to find out that during the siege at Waco, ATF and FBI officers didn't shoot one round, while at the same time hundreds of shots were fired at them."

Bet the folks there would be just as surprised to learn that as you were... Have no idea what kind of garbage "special" you got spoonfed across your TV, but there are many good videos of what happened that are 180 out from your "special."
art

It was on one the specials that the History channel ran on snipers the other night; the one on law enforcement snipers.

They interviewed some of the snipers that were there. I guess they could be lying on national TV, I just assumed if they were somebody would call them on it if they were.

I'll have to watch it again, maybe I misunderstood, maybe they said no shots fired until fired upon, or maybe they were talking about the snipers.

MMark, they must have meant just the snipers maybe. I don't know about that. I do know that I was watching TV when the local channel broke in with a special report live.

I saw a guy with FBI on the back of his jacket crouching behind a car door and shooting around it at something off camera. I saw the slide come back and empty hulls come out of the top of that pistol. So at least one was shooting.

Not going to get into the ethics, such as they were, of Waco. Everybody got their own take on it.


BCR

This was shown on TV as it was happening. You can't change history no matter how hard you try. SOME of the FBI guys maybe were not firing. But I damn well saw lots of others FIRING over and over.

Your sniper special smells of doodoo. Was it made by Michael Moore by any chance.

Tex

Anyone who unlawfully threatens a life is subject to the other human acting in self-defense, LEO or not.

Not about Dallas, but I just watched the special about the ATF and Waco. I have no idea where you get the idea the ATF never fired a shot. Every news clip/video I've ever seen shows ATF Agents on the ground firing pistols, while the agents on the roof are firing MP5's as they're entering a second story window, never to return. Their snipers may claim to have never fired a shot, but there's conflicting stories about that.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were a mess from the get go and left people dead on both sides that didn't need killing.

MMarketello -"I'm not so sure about Waco.
I was watching a specail the other night and was suprised to find out that during the siege at Waco, ATF and FBI officers didn't shoot one round, while at the same time hundreds of shots were fired at them. Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me."
___________________________________________________
MMarketello, as usual, just as with the lies the left liberals on teeeveee tell you about those evil semi-automatic guns they --and you -- want to ban, you've again swallowed hook, line, and sinker, the left wing pap fed you by the propagandists who made that "special."

I, too, watched the shootout the day of the event in Waco, and it was quite blatently obvious the FBI & BATF agents were firing many, many rounds at the people in the plywood building, called by the idiots media pap pushers, "a compound."

Koresh could have been arrested at any time without all the murder that later occurred at WACO (We Ain't Comin' Out!). But the Klintons, Butch Reno, and the hard chargers at BATF wanted to have "a show," a "media event." So that's what they had.

L.W.

L.W.

a jury of dallas' peers said manslaughter, and now he's done his time..... let him live his life.....

as to the atf, they are a solution in search of a problem..... why can the state not regulate such matters, within the framework of the constitution, and the sheriff not enforce them??.....

a team of federal agents followed koresh on foot through downtown waco, and held off from arresting him at that point in order to take advantage of the fact that arresting agents are allowed to conduct a search of a dwelling or place of business, pursuant to arrest, without a search warrant, if the arrest occurs at said dwelling or place of business.....

Interesting thread.

I think a lot of people would be surprised at what it is like to sit on a jury in a criminal case. I know I sure was. It ain't always like the movies either!! I never realized what a job it is for the prosecuting attorneys to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt. When both the defense and the prosecution rest and you are locked up in a room with eleven other people it is sometimes unbelieveable how hard it is to agree on things. Add to this you have a list of instructions you are supposed to go by in order to find a person guilty and things really get tough, especially in a case such as the Dallas case where there were conflicting stories and differing opinions of him. Actually I have read the jury foreman said that if Dallas hadn't shot them in the head after the initial shootings he could have been found inocent. Gut feelings don't always matter lots of times, hard facts do. In this case there undoubtedly were not sufficient "hard facts" to convince the jury he was guilty of the maximum charge so they agreed to agree on the lesser charge. Actually this was the way it was on the case I served as a jurror. Four of twelve people said there was no way they felt the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the person was guilty of the maximum charge, so the reduced charge was more or less a compromise of sorts. At least it was a conviction, as was the Dallas case. Judges get mighty upset as a rule when you end up with a hung jury.

I'm with Big Stick on Dallas serving his time. When I worked at a state prison and had inmates working for me one of the things I always said was that I wasn't there to judge them. Someone else already had done that and as far as I was concerned that the time they served was payment for what they had done. I still feel that way. From what I gather besides serving his time, Dallas has pretty much been a model prisoner so I too feel that he should be left alone to try and get his life back together. Fortunately for him he is still young enough that he has a chance to do that. I wish him luck in that.

Like I wrote before, I don't care about Ruby Ride or Waco, my interest (as it pertains to this thread) is limited to Claude Dallas and the story, as I understand it from reading "Give A Boy A Gun".

I NEVER use the term "jack booted thugs".

Jeff

What I can't understand is why you refuse to believe that Pogue was possibly a dangerous individual. Reputations don't create themselves, Pogue had a bad one according to virtually everyone. This doesn't mean he deserved to die, however he wore a badge and strapped on a gun. If he was unable to do his job without abusing his power it was only a matter of time before he was called on it. Law enforcement officers are not all powerful despite the fact that some seem to feel that they are. I agree that the best way to deal with the law is to be polite and respectful, however when the law is abusive/rude I can honestly say that I would have a very hard time convicting someone who fought back in such a case if I where serving on a jury. Nothing pisse$ me off more than power hungry individuals in authority that try to bully those they are supposed to be protecting. These rotten eggs make life harder and more dangerous for those who wear a badge without a chip on their shoulder.

Let me tell you about my experience with Bill Pogue. I was returning from an unsuccesfull hunt on Juniper Mt. In southern Idaho. Eighty miles of two track from the nearest hard road, phone or any other type of help, Pogue stepped into the road and stopped me. No game in the open pick up, empty rifle cased behind the seat. After he searched the truck, he seemed angry he had found no reason to arrest me. He began to jab me in the chest with his left fingers while working the hammer on his revolver with his right. As he backed me away from my truck, I remembered the old Viet Nam feeling of "today I will die". He constantly berated me with taunts of "Don't like it, huh boy" and "What are you going to do about, boy" I believed then and believe now he was looking for an excuse to kill me. I made a silent pledge to myself, and never told any one about it, the next time I saw him in the desert I would kill him.

When Dallas shot him, he was working the hammer on his revolver. Over 300 people were prepared to testify to sinliar events.

Remember, when he went after Dallas, he was acting on behalf of a rancher's son who claimed the area as his own, private trapping domain. Remember Stevens never saw what happened with Pogue but did testify when Elms emerged from the tent his revlover was drawn. Remember also, Stevens was never charged with anything even though he admitted to helping Dallas dispose of Elms' body. Dallas should have been nominated for citizen of the year

Alonzo
Some here will not believe you, because you do not have a badge. I believe you.
art

I was beginning to think that Alonzo's post had put an end to this discussion.

The only thing I will say is this. If Pogue was as out of control as many say he was, you have to wonder about his supervisors. Either they were sitting on their thumbs, or they were part of a system that didn't allow them to know what was going on, or to effectively deal with it if they did. A tragedy in any event. With the power inherent in law enforcement, and the potential for its abuse, a system that doesn't balance accountability to the public, with effective law enforcement, and officers' rights as employees including safety, is a formula for disaster.

Paul

When I worked for Montana F&G in the '50s and '60, warden Jim F's bosses knew very well that he was a killer thirsting for a victim, but they liked the fact that he made "a lot of pinches" � never mind how questionable some of those pinches were. I often heard said of him "he's a good warden," even from those who privately opined that he was eager for the opportunity to kill somebody "justifiably." I have no trouble whatever in imagining a very likely scenario in which someone had to kill Jim to keep from being killed. Luckily, that never happened.

He was later convicted of killing a bighorn sheep in Idaho and bringing it in as a Montana kill. The department fired him but later was forced by a judge to rehire him with full back pay. In the interim, he flew "bush" for a local flying service � without, it turned-out, a pilot's license. He was killed in a 'plane crash some years later.

He was a disaster in more ways than one. He cast a very ugly shadow on wardens and the department. He didn't inspire either respect for or compliance with Montana's game laws. Quite the opposite � there were those (I knew several) who'd make it a point to violate game laws as a direct result of their antipathy toward Jim F and the department.

To my way of thinking, the term "good warden" applied much more accurately to guys like Clyde Howard and Stuart Markle, in the same district as Jim F at that time. Clyde was an old-timer when I knew him � an effective warden of whom a judge said that after trying Clyde's cases for two or three decades, he couldn't remember a defendant who wouldn't shake hands with Clyde after the trial. Both Clyde and Stuart made their share of "pinches," all right � and got along well with Montana hunters and fishermen.

To Jim, everyone who had a license was a violator who just happened not to have been caught yet. Everyone else, of course, was even worse (not even a license).

Any meeting between two outlaw enemies far from the nearest paved road is crammed full of potential for violent confrontation and crime totally independent of and unrelated to any other crime. From this distance of years and miles, with no video tape to view and two key witnesses unable to testify, the truth and extent of Dallas's culpability is impossible to determine. I could as easily see his side as Pogue's and Elms's.

So (except for me) we have only our opinions, formed mainly on the bases of existing biases. I don't know and can't guess how justified or how guilty Dallas is. I don't envy those who so hastily and freely opine for or against him.

.

Excellent post, Mr. Howell.