Re: "Well, it was certainly not the first move."
I think you'd better check your essential facts here.
Re: "I do not agree with the assumption of some that there is any justification for armed resistance to law enforcement agents. You go to court and plea your case with words, not bullets."
The exception could be when law enforcement is acting in an unconstitutional manner, and you cannot therefore trust their intentions(if you were David Koresh, perhaps for sure).
"Whatever happened at Waco, these facts remain: It is not against the law to hold irregular religious beliefs. It is not illegal to hold and trade firearms. It is legal to defend your own home against armed assault, if that assault is illegal. It is impossible to see this film without reflecting that the federal government, from the top down, treated the Branch Davidians as if those rights did not apply." - Roger Ebert(from his Chicago Sun Times review of WACO: The Rules of Engagement, per waco93.com )
"...leathery McClennan County Sheriff Jack Harwell, who had little to say during the fifty-one-day siege in 1993. In the film, Harwell doesn't exactly call federal lawman flatfeet or murderers, but what he does say raises some important questions about the sanctioned version of the Mount Carmel story. "We had a bunch of women, children, elderly people, they were all good, good people," the sheriff says. "I was around them quite a lot. They were always nice, married, they minded their own business, they were never overbearing."
"Harwell admits that there were plenty of rumors. But, he says, "To this day we don't have a case that we can make against Vernon Howell or anyone else for child abuse, even though the news media and other people were saying this is what happened."" -Dick Reavis, in the Texas Observer( waco93.com ).
Dan B |
