[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: in defense of Lon Horiuchi
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: in defense of Lon Horiuchi
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:19:34 -0400
- Comments: This message was remailed by a FREE automatedremailing service. For additional information on this service,send a message with the subject "remailer-help" [email protected]. The body of the message will bediscarded. To report abuse, contact the operator [email protected]. Headers below this point wereinserted by the original sender.
- Sender: [email protected]
Zooko Journeyman wrote:
>
> Anonymous <[email protected]> mumbled:
> >
> > It's amazing that Freeh would admit that shooting an unarmed
> > woman holding an infant is what "he was trained to do" and was "within
> > the scope of his authority" and that he "reasonably believed [it] was
> > proper" to do so. What are they teaching at FBI school nowadays?
> >
> > Horiuchi's defense is really no different than Timothy
> > McVeigh's: "yes, it was a mistake but he felt it was justified and
> > reasonably believed at the time that what he was doing was proper..."
> > Too bad McVeigh didn't have a badge saying FBI on it.
>
> Lest any naive readers who aren't familiar with the details of
> the event buy this kind of spin-doctoring, please be aware that
> the woman in question was probably not visible to the sniper,
> and it is almost certain that he was aiming at her armed
> husband who was shooting back. The bullet travelled through a
> door or some such obstruction I think (I forget the details)
> before hitting the victim.
Zooko fails to take into consideration that the FBI's role in the
affair was to back the unnecessary fascist actions of those who
had decided it was their right to interfere in the life of a family
which was largely minding their own business and seeking to live
their lives free from constant subjection to a wide variety of often
senseless and/or meaningless, arbitrary laws.
Truthmonger