Court OKs Trial for FBI Ruby Ridge Shooter
Photos
Reuters Photo
By Andrew Quinn
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In a fresh blow to the beleaguered FBI (news - web sites), a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that an agency sharpshooter can be prosecuted for shooting and killing the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver in the Ruby Ridge standoff of 1992.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing an earlier ruling, voted 6-5 that FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi's actions in the August conflict in remote northern Idaho exceeded the limits of immunity given to federal agents.
The decision by the sharply divided court promised to revive national debate over the rules of conduct for federal agents and reopen wounds from Ruby Ridge, which has become a rallying call for anti-government groups incensed over what they see as federal trampling of individual rights.
Circuit Judge Alex Kozinkski, writing the majority opinion, rejected federal arguments that Horiuchi was acting within the line of duty when he shot Vicki Weaver on Aug. 22, 1992.
``When federal officers violate the Constitution, either through malice or excessive zeal, they can be held accountable for violating the state's criminal laws,'' Kozinski said.
The court, Kozinski wrote, cannot agree that Horiuchi's use of deadly force at Ruby Ridge was ``objectively reasonable'' and reinstated the criminal complaint against him.
The appeals court decision came as the Federal Bureau of Investigation fends off criticism over its handling of the investigation of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (news - web sites) and lingering doubts over bloody raid of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas in 1993.
Weaver, speaking to a local radio station from his home in Jefferson, Indiana, said the court's ruling would help bring the FBI back in line.
``They've operated like a bunch of cowboys for a long time and this ruling should rein them in a little bit,'' he said.
FBI Director Louis Freeh said he was disappointed by the decision, adding the FBI would continue to support Horiuchi.
``We continue to believe strongly Agent Horiuchi met the legal standard that protects law enforcement officers when they carry out their sworn duties, even when the consequence in hindsight is regrettable,'' Freeh said in a statement.
Stephen Yagman, special prosecutor for the State of Idaho in the case, told Reuters he would move quickly to reinstate proceedings against Horiuchi in U.S. District Court in Boise.
``This is a victory for individual rights against an often evil federal government,'' he said. ``It puts another nail in the still empty coffin of a corrupt and incompetent FBI.''
Dissenting judges on the panel voiced fears that that the majority decision was ``a grave disservice'' to federal agents who face armed criminals, and would have a chilling effect on the ability of federal agents to enforce the law.
``The inevitable result of the majority opinion is that federal agents will hesitate in precisely those highly charged situations in which their quick judgement is most critical,'' the dissent, written by Judge Michael Hawkins, said.
CONFRONTATION IN RURAL IDAHO
The confrontation at Ruby Ridge began Aug. 21, 1992, when U.S. marshals approached Weaver's cabin to arrest him for failing to appear in court on gun charges.
A gunfight erupted, and U.S. Marshal William Degan and Weaver's 14-year-old son Sammy were killed. The FBI was called in later that day.
The next day, following a confused series of events outside the cabin, Horiuchi wounded Weaver and his friend Kevin Harris and fired a shot that killed 42-year-old Vicki Weaver, who was standing behind a door inside the cabin.
Weaver and Harris surrendered 10 days later and were acquitted in a 1993 federal trial of murder charges in the killing of Degan.
The U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) decided in 1994 not to pursue charges against Horiuchi, but prosecutors in Boundary County, Idaho went ahead and charged him with involuntary manslaughter for his role in the shoot-out.
In a 2-1 ruling last year, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit sided with Horiuchi's lawyers, who had argued that under the ``supremacy clause'' of the U.S. Constitution, a federal officer cannot be subject to state criminal prosecution for actions taken in the line of duty.
The panel also found Idaho had not proven malice or criminal intent in its case against the FBI sharpshooter.
``At the time, Horiuchi made an objectively reasonable decision,'' U.S. District Judge William Shubb wrote in 2-1 majority opinion upholding a May 1998 lower court ruling on Horiuchi's immunity from prosecution.
``MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN DISPUTE''
On Tuesday, however, the full court changed its position, saying that Horiuchi's version of the events at Ruby Ridge could not be taken at face value and that there were ``material questions of fact in dispute'' which could indicate Horiuchi acted outside the boundaries of professional conduct.
``After carefully reviewing the record, we cannot agree with the district court that Agent Horiuchi's use of deadly force against Harris and, by extension, Mrs. Weaver, was objectively reasonable as a matter of law,'' the court said, remanding the case back to district court for evidentiary hearings.
The dissenting justices accused the majority of muddying the waters of an already fraught legal case, and said their ruling could set a dangerous precedent for other law enforcement officers making decisions in the line of duty.
``Every day in this country, federal agents place their lives in the line of fire to secure the liberties that we all hold dear. There will be times when those agents make mistakes, sudden judgement calls that turn out to be horribly wrong,'' the dissent said.
Ruby Ridge
Ruby Ridge
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
The dissenting justices accused the majority of muddying the waters of an already fraught legal case, and said their ruling could set a dangerous precedent for other law enforcement officers making decisions in the line of duty.
Every day in this country, federal agents place their lives in the line of fire to secure the liberties that we all hold dear. There will be times when those agents make mistakes, sudden judgement calls that turn out to be horribly wrong,'' the dissent said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every day in this country human beings of all walks of life find themselves in that split second decision whether to place their lives in the line of fire to secure their own or their loved ones' lives, health, or liberties. There are times that these become mistakes, these judgments go horribly wrong. And these people go on trial.
I'd be rather surprised if the learned dissenting judge is suggesting that where there is ambivalence in the factual situations concerning civilians that they should be resolved by the civilians automatically not going on trial.
No, what the learned dissenting judge is advocating is de facto a two-tier society, where federal law enforcement has more rights to use deadly force than civilians. I, for one (and I strongly suggest I am not alone here) do not like it, and am grateful that this view was the minority - although barely.
The late, lamented Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was supposed to protect us from governmental intrusion without probable cause - no matter the source from the government, no matter the caliber. Perhaps the dissent did not realize that some of us believe governmental gunfire to be intrusive.
student
[This message has been edited by student (edited June 06, 2001).]
The dissenting justices accused the majority of muddying the waters of an already fraught legal case, and said their ruling could set a dangerous precedent for other law enforcement officers making decisions in the line of duty.
Every day in this country, federal agents place their lives in the line of fire to secure the liberties that we all hold dear. There will be times when those agents make mistakes, sudden judgement calls that turn out to be horribly wrong,'' the dissent said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every day in this country human beings of all walks of life find themselves in that split second decision whether to place their lives in the line of fire to secure their own or their loved ones' lives, health, or liberties. There are times that these become mistakes, these judgments go horribly wrong. And these people go on trial.
I'd be rather surprised if the learned dissenting judge is suggesting that where there is ambivalence in the factual situations concerning civilians that they should be resolved by the civilians automatically not going on trial.
No, what the learned dissenting judge is advocating is de facto a two-tier society, where federal law enforcement has more rights to use deadly force than civilians. I, for one (and I strongly suggest I am not alone here) do not like it, and am grateful that this view was the minority - although barely.
The late, lamented Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was supposed to protect us from governmental intrusion without probable cause - no matter the source from the government, no matter the caliber. Perhaps the dissent did not realize that some of us believe governmental gunfire to be intrusive.
student
[This message has been edited by student (edited June 06, 2001).]
