Damage shown from blast that stopped police-killing sniper

[Uponthegears]

86. I was willing

to accept Steve's representation that you are a lawyer. I applaud you for working to protect voter rights. I do have to tell you, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you have significant experience, education, or training when it comes to civil rights and law enforcement.

That lawsuit began when the plaintiff, one of the Randy Weaver "clan," sued the federal government and a number of agents in their individual capacity for injuries he received during the attack on the Weaver compound for violating his rights under the Fourth (by violating the "security" -- as in the right of the people to be secure in their persons -- of his body without probable cause and/or a warrant) and Fifth Amendment (by "taking" his health without due process). In moving to dismiss the lawsuit, the Government maintained (just as you do now) that, even though there had been no aggressive conduct by the clan for a number of hours/days, the fact that the "clan" had already murdered a federal agent, coupled with the fact that they were heavily armed, coupled with the fact that they had made threats against law enforcement, coupled with the fact that they would not surrender (does any of this sound familiar to you?) justified law enforcement using force and therefore the action should be dismissed.

The court disagreed, finding that even though all of these facts were essentially undisputed, the government had to present additional facts to demonstrate an actual threat of harm to innocent people to support their justification defense.

That, friend, is exactly what I have been saying.