555

Mediamatter.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 133 points 11 months ago

This commentary is reminiscent of the radical right’s reactions to the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992, an 11-day standoff in Idaho between federal agents and the family of Randy Weaver, a Christian fundamentalist affiliated with the far-right white separatist movement. The standoff resulted in the deaths of Weaver’s wife, son, and a federal marshal.

Dude... Ruby Ridge was a big deal because the FBI shot Randy Weaver in the back while he was lifting the latch to his shed to see his son's body, and then kept shooting at him as he and his family was running back to his cabin, hitting and killing his wife while she was holding their baby. It was a huge deal for a lot of people, Randy Weaver was found not guilty of any "siege-related charges" and awarded $3 million in damages, and the DOJ extensively revised their policies as a result.

Craig Deleeuw threatened to kill the president, and then according to the FBI and I see no reason to doubt them, was pointing his weapon at the FBI when they shot him. Whatever Randy Weaver did to create the Ruby Ridge confrontation, I don't think it's fair to compare the reaction to that to the reaction to this.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 34 points 11 months ago

The guy that said federal agents wouldn't dare arrest him "because they'd get a .45 in the face"? He pointed a gun at the FBI?

Say it ain't so

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
555 points (95.3% liked)

politics

18114 readers
3649 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS