What happened at Ruby Ridge and who was at fault? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ธ.ค. 2024
- On August 21, 1992, federal agents engaged in a firefight on Ruby Ridge, Idaho, that started an 11-day siege of the Weaver family which left a mother and her son dead. Jimmy Akin and Dom Bettinelli ask how the situation started, who was at fault, and how did it all go so disastrously bad.
sqpn.com/2020/...
Further Resources:
• Jess Walter’s book Ruby Ridge: amzn.to/318vL0y
• Jon Ronson’s book Them: Adventures with Extremists: amzn.to/2CFs5Kj
• Gary Noesner’s book Stalling For Time: My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator: amzn.to/34gfTv8
• Ruby Ridge: tinyurl.com/yc...
• Randy Weaver: tinyurl.com/ya...
• Bo Gritz: tinyurl.com/y7...
• Entrapment: tinyurl.com/yc...
• Department of Justice Ruby Ridge Task Force Report: tinyurl.com/yd...
• Charges (w/Verdicts) Against Weaver and Harris: tinyurl.com/ya...
• Sheriff’s Review on Who Killed Sammy: tinyurl.com/yb...
• Lon Horiuchi: tinyurl.com/y9...
Mysterious Headlines: (Dyatlov Pass, originally discussed in Episode 24)
• Russian Authorities Try to Explain Dyatlov Pass Incident: tinyurl.com/yy...
• Families Reject Authorities Explanation: tinyurl.com/y4...
Jimmy akin, thank you for helping me with my conversion to Catholicism. I’ve been all over the place. Was raised Mormon, became Protestant, then agnostic, then back to Protestant again, now I finally am at Catholicism and I don’t feel like Changing my mind anymore. Shout out to you and bishop Barron for helping me. God bless you
Thank you! God bless you, and welcome *home*!
So basically Randy was completely justified in not trusting the government. The government will never be anyones friend.
NODODY should trust the government.
@@jahnkaplank8626 well .... Unless you're on welfare get'n cheese .... Or are a business that's too big to fail .... Then you're all up G's ass
🤔
This was a massacre. Plain and simple
What an episode. A tragedy thoroughly explained. Great work guys!
Another remarkable episode gentleman.
Have a blessed day.
Ruby Ridge was crap and a toe into the water to see if the Gov could get by with such an outrageous action. When they didnt so much as get their hair singed with that completely vile act against their own citizens they went for broke at Waco where they pulled out all the stops and played out an ugly and unlawful bloodbath to see if the American public would stand for it even using the same players who had enacted the original debacle at Ruby Ridge. Guess what folks they got away with that too. Both episodes are a sickening testament to the complete corruption of our highest ideals.
God bless you Jimmy for amazing topics and great insight
I held off on watching this because I knew it would raise my blood pressure. Full disclosure, I've got relatives who are in federal and local law enforcement, and they're disgusted with the criminals who manage to get hired in law enforcement agencies. I'm disgusted with those criminals because they put my loved ones in danger, first my relatives in law enforcement, by making all law enforcement look bad, and second my civilian relatives and friends who could be falsely accused at any time by some macho sociopath who wants to get promoted. The changes in the FBI were merely cosmetic. Look at the way General Flynn was treated, and Roger Stone, and now the January 6 political prisoners. Here in Michigan, the FBI concocted a fake plot to kidnap the horrible governor -- and the FBI did it by way of a sloppy informant and sloppy agents who entrapped the least powerful frustrated workers they could find. One of the accused is so mentally challenged that his friends call him Captain Autistic. That whole crud show turned out so bad that the lead FBI captain was promoted to Washington, D.C., where he oversaw (maybe still oversees) the arrests of the January 6 political prisoners by the most obnoxious means possible. So far he hasn't personally ordered any of them killed, but he is a jerk who goes after grandparents by tacking them to the ground on the street in front of their neighbors. There are some choice Freudian insults that can be applied to his personality.
This is simply wonderful content. Thank you very much!
The government is always the potential enemy. The government is given power of life and death and that power is often abused. This was a classic case of an abuse of power. It's also typical in that rarely is anyone taken to task for the things they do. They find a way to cover their tracks.
if we didnt have so called "gun laws", he wouldn't have violated gun laws.
He never did! He was entrapped! Disgusting fukn democrats stilll killing us
Very informative. Thanks!
Great episode. I'd never heard of this incident. Will you be covering the Jonestown massacre?
Yes! Absolutely!
@@JimmyAkin I really look forward to it. As heart-breaking as it is, it's a fascinating insight into human behaviour in extreme situations.
Listening to the audio book of Them: Adventures with Extremists now- great book.
Thank you for an excellent episode. I would like to point out that M16s are not made in 9mm; the article likely meant MP5s, which were very popular amongst law enforcement agencies.
RIP, Randy. 😢
two mysterious figures downvoted this episode then disappeared
Are the Bundy brothers a mystery?
The Christian Identity movement sounds a lot like British Israelism. By the way, I am a full blooded mutt, and my grandmother was active in the Pan Indian Movement. White, Red, Yellow, Black, and everything in between and every mix thereof, all the children of one God!
Ya know what? This crap is still being done!
"sawed off shotgun" versus "sawn off shotgun" . Completely illegal in Australia.
Sadly yes...
@@AaronJamesFD Actually, the law has some qualifications to it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#United_States
Guilt by associated and rule violation yet the gun's and associates still are here .
Weaver was not a Green Beret, he was support for the Special Forces (aka Green Berets). He was in a support company, probably what is called "B Company" that is located at Fort Bragg. They were still at Bragg next to our SF barracks when I left Bragg in 1983. They only perform support and have not been through the Special Forces Qualification Course or other special training, and do not go on missions. Think of them as supply clerks and accountants, etc.. They do wear green berets, but without the "flash", the beret badge that signifies one has completed training and is qualified to be assigned to an A-team. Anyone can be in B-Company. It's just a support role. Proof that this is true is Weaver never left Bragg for an assignment overseas, and he was only in the army for 3 years. At that time, to even qualify for SF training, you needed at least 3 years time in grade. It follows then, that Bo Gritz, who was assigned to 5th SF Group in Vietnam, would not have been his commanding officer. Other than that, excellent work, guys. Enjoyed the report.
Yes, an important factor to mention, and something that should have also factored into the initial threat assessment of Randy. Not that it would have really mattered based on how much was ignored or falsely attributed in that assessment in the first place.
glowies gonna glow
"Radical right" cute. Aryan nations kkk etc are never conservative
@@muscularcatholicism I think that is a good point. The majority of people who identify as conservative would probably never support those groups, but they themselves may consider themselves conservative.
@@muscularcatholicism
Well, that's the challenge, isn't it? In America, as a general rule, "conservative" means three things:
1. Intent in law to conserve/restore the individualistic "classical liberalism" associated with American constitutional originalism;
2. Preference for small-business entrepreneurialism and ownership over multinational corporatism, and for free-market capitalism over mercantilism or socialism; and,
3. Freedom to practice traditional Judeo-Christian morality and to raise children with minimal deleterious influence from the culture.
The "classical liberalism" aspect is also variously described as "small-government conservatism" or "libertarianism"; but, depending on how these terms are defined, they don't perfectly overlap. Also, importantly, there are two forms of "classical liberalism": the British/Scottish tradition of Locke and Burke, and the French tradition of Rousseau and Condorcet. American "conservatism" strongly favors the former and rejects the latter.
So, ironically, American "conservatism" is a very specific sub-species of liberalism (certainly by 18th/19th century standards), but in conservatism "classical liberalism" is only one leg of the 3-legged stool (together with entrepreneurialism and traditional familistic morality).
One important implication is: American "conservatism" is broadly incompatible with European-style fascism and socialism:
- It sees persons more as individuals than as members of interest-groups or racial-groups;
- It opposes disparate government treatment based on group identity;
- It opposes heavy-handed government action in general;
- It opposes subordinating the operations of privately-owned businesses to the agenda of the state (as fascism did);
- It opposes replacing private-ownership of production with state-ownership (as socialism and fascism both did);
- It insists on all humans being made "in the image of God" and endowed "by their creator with unalienable rights" and thus opposes any ideology which views members of a particular race as less-than-human.
American conservatives describe both fascism and socialism as LEFT wing ideologies, because...
(a.) they're collectivist and group-identity-based, rather than individualist;
(b.) they both tend to produce the same kind of heavy-handed, even totalitarian, governments;
(c.) and anyway, if conserving American constitutionalism and historic cultural mores is "right-wing," both fascism and socialism must be "left-wing" since they both, in very similar ways, are antithetical to everything American conservatives want to conserve.
There. That's what "conservative" means in America.
There are exceptions, of course. But what I've described is true at least 9 times out of 10.
They are conservative, what are you conserving except money ?
@@muscularcatholicism I'm an ex-liberal. To me conservative is about smaller government and lower taxes. It's about balancing the budget and keeping the government out of our lives. It's about free enterprise and keeping the government business friendly. I'm retired now but I was self employed for a lot of my work life. I was self employed for the same reason most people are self employed. I liked the autonomy. I didn't want to have a boss. The left likes to paint conservatives as greedy racists. Conservatism has nothing to do with race. It's the left who stirs up all the racial issues.
@@cw-on-ytfascism is a left wing ideology that arose out of the failed Paris Commune of the 1870s, if I have the date right. When the Commune failed, factions split the Communist Party into the branch that became the Bolsheviks in Russia, and the Nazis in Germany, as well as the form of fascism that came to power in Italy under Mussolini. They all held (hold) to the same ends, but disagree on how to achieve the goals. Fascists opt for State control by means of cooperation with the private means of production -- and this "cooperation" is to be achieved by legal means, favoring private producers who obey the State in all things, including meeting production quotas for products the State approves of and even mandates. It's nowhere near a free market. On the other hand, Bolsheviks opt for total State control of the means of production, with no private ownership. After Lenin died, the power struggle in the Soviet Union was between the Bolshevik Stalin and the more mixed Fascist Bolshevik Trotsky. Stalin won the power in the USSR, and Trotsky went into exile in Mexico, where he drew disciples from elite American Harvard and Yale youth from powerful American families. They returned to the US and formed the Neo-Con wing of the Republican Party. They are neither new nor conservative. They just know how to sound like conservatives. But make no mistake, they want the State to control the means of production by way of controlling the private sector.
How many christian pastors do you know that sale beer ? Did Aryan Nation have a license to sale beer . What is your evidence that Aryan Nation dispensed beer as was implied here ?
Do you think whether or not Aryan Nation sold beer is important? Do you have any reason to think Jimmy or Dom thought it is?