So the government did nothing wrong, got it.
Is the implication here that because he was attending white supremacist and Aryan Nation meetings they he doesn’t deserve the same rights as everyone else?
There are certainly many belief systems I don’t agree with, but it would be anti-democratic of me to suggest they don’t deserve the same protections under the constitution that I do.
He could have resisted at any time during the initial arrest. He went peacefully. He passively retreated to his property. He didn’t flee the state or go into hiding. And he certainly wasn’t planning to conspire violently against the government.
Right. You’d think in their correspondence to the guy that is already distrustful and fearful of the government, they could have double checked the date on his paperwork.
What does full blown tyranny even mean? And where did the idea come from that you need some massive number of people all agreeing to rise up to be effective against tyranny? Historically, it’s almost always a motivated minority. It’s worked before, it will likely work again in the context of human history.
Again, what does Comey do in the previous theoretical, just accept his fate?
Do you think Weaver would have shot the cops if they came to his door announced and in uniform?
Interesting use of the word criminal. Facing charges doesn’t make one a criminal. But show me someone else that’s faced as much malfeasance of the government as Randy Weaver and I will likely be sympathetic if they choose not to participate in the legal process.
No, I’m advocating for a system that is instrumental to self protection, serves passively as a robust instrument against tyranny, can be utilized actively when the rest of the guardrails fail, and can’t be easily changed or taken away by an authoritarian state.
Regarding China, guns could have helped. They were forced to give them up... in order to prevent rebellion. If they are going to rebel now, where are they going to get the weapons? If you don’t think AR15s are effective against the government, what good are pitchforks and kitchen knives going to be?
I guess just accept your fate and hope for the best. Apparently your argument is the government will always work as intended. And if it doesn’t, oh well, you’re fkd.
Lol.
No the implication is that he gets the same rights as everyone...and also is expected to follow the law like everyone. You seem to think he gets to decide on his own whether he has to follow the law
He went to those meetings because he was anti government from the start.
Not sure why you keep harping on the trial date issue. He was convicted on that, and lost an appeal on that.
But i will summarize the courts findings (below) for you
He refused to contact his pre trial officer on jan 22 (who would have told him the date was moved from Feb 19 to Feb 20)
He didnt show up on Feb 19 (his original date) in which he would have been told to come on feb 20
He didn't show up on Feb 20
He didnt show up on March 20 either!!! So clearly, the wrong date issue is completely irrelevant, as confirmed by the judge, jury and appeals courts.
So give it up already
The evidence of Weaver's action to avoid notice takes two forms. First, at his arraignment, Weaver was instructed, as a condition of his release, to contact his pre-trial services officer on January 22. Weaver did not do this, and therefore did not learn of the date on which he had been scheduled to appear. This violation of the terms of his release, alone, obviated any need for the government to prove that Weaver had actual knowledge of the correct date. See Martinez, 890 F.2d at 1093 (10th Cir. 1988) (government need not prove knowledge when defendant did not receive notice because he failed to inform the court of a change of address as required by the conditions of his release).
Second, at his arraignment, Weaver was notified that his trial was set for February 19. If he had appeared on the 19th, he would have learned that the trial had been rescheduled for the 20th, and there now would be no question of adequate notice. However, Weaver conceded at oral argument that he failed to appear on the 19th. The only innocent explanation for this failure is his receipt of the letter from his pre-trial services officer, erroneously stating that the trial had been rescheduled for March 20. Yet Weaver failed to appear on March 20 also.
Weaver's undisputed knowledge that he was to go to trial sometime, the undisputed evidence that he failed to appear on the actual date set for trial or any other date that Weaver plausibly could have believed was the correct trial date, and the undisputed evidence that Weaver failed to keep in regular contact with the pre-trial services office as required by his release, compels the conclusion that Weaver actively avoided learning of the correct trial date if in fact he was not aware of it. Therefore, the government was not required to prove that Weaver had notice of the correct date. Accordingly, any error in its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Would he have surrended peacefully? All evidence to the contrary.
Prior threats and anti-government beliefs: Law enforcement was aware of Weaver's long-standing anti-government and white separatist beliefs and statements. The U.S. Marshals Service had collected information for years indicating Weaver's intent to engage in a violent confrontation with federal officials.
Vicki Weaver's letter: Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife, sent a letter to a friend in 1990 saying, "We have decided to stay on this mountain; you could not drag us away with chains". A threat assessment concluded the language was threatening and indicated the family would resist arrest.
This was BEFORE the siege.
What you are arguing for is a system where defendants can unilaterally decide if they are guilty or "victims" of government malfeasance. They can mount an armed resistance whenever they want. A system where constitutionally they are granted the rights to a trial by jury, but they can give that right up and stage an armed standoff.
Then you seem to try to make an argument that the same corrupt legal system somehow wasn't corrupt when it found him innocent of the siege related issues, but WAS corrupt when it found him guilty of the trial date and bail issues, but then wasnt corrupt when he got off of the weapons charges via entrapment.
Then you try to argue that he didn't intend to violently resist. Ok, so what happens when an armed individual barricades themselves in their home, refuses for MONTHS to surrender peacefully and refuses to go to court. What should the government do? Walk away? Good to know that's all it takes to get out of criminal charges. Just gotta barricade myself with my gun and the government is supposed to give up
Makes no sense at all.
"No, I’m advocating for a system that is instrumental to self protection, serves passively as a robust instrument against tyranny, can be utilized actively when the rest of the guardrails fail, and can’t be easily changed or taken away by an authoritarian state."
Thats a bunch of vague nonsense. Its advocating for a system that nobody know when to use it, how to use it, or which people get to use it. No evidence that it works any better than peaceful routes..its arguably worse in most cases. And the authoritarian state has to somehow be authoritarian enough to warrant its use, but not authoritarian enough to prevent its use.
But it explains why the examples of its " success" are non-existent.
