Lon Horiuchi and HSPrecision.

[EddieCoyle]

Actually, you have it wrong. Unless in your mind the FBI is a terrorist organization, which makes you... well... you get it.

Not sure how that makes sense, since this guy was a legally employed FBI agent who was doing their job against suspected anti-gov and terrorist individuals. Now, if you guys feel that you are on the side of the Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Timothy McVeigh people, then yeah, be upset. I on the other hand am a law abiding citizen, and so I have nothing against this guy or HS precision for that fact. I like our government agencies who are out to destroy terrorist groups. Didn't realize that to you, FBI was Osama. That seems very un-american to me.

I'll continue to keep buying their product, because seemingly they arm our law enforcement. The law enforcement that fights terrorism.

I haven't read though the rest of the thread (yet) but I left you negative rep points for this post. Go ahead and leave them back for me.

This post is reprehensible. Seriously. If you believe even one iota in freedom or in the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution, you would not post this. Do your research.

 

[Half Cocked]

I'm not a fan these guys wearing bullet vests over their uniforms to do traffic stops.

I also find this unacceptable. But you are reading too much into it. It is done out of pure laziness. No "intimidation" factor or wanting to "play soldier".

What happened to the Weaver family is just the extreme (? inevitable) end-point of the militarization of police in America. Think about it, this sniper shot a unarmed woman while she held her baby over a gun charge. You don't find that deeply upsetting and symbolic? Or do just think gun owners are paranoid and need to relax about a few police "f***-ups"?

One more time!!!.......I have never supported this incident!!

I just finished reading a book about an ATF agent, Billy Queen, who went undercover with the Mongols motorcycle gang. While UC, Billy had several run ins with bad cops, and, it was interesting to read how he reacted being on the civilian side of things.

I have been in an undercover narcotics unit for years and I have also had similar run-ins. The operative word is "bad" cops.

 

[clinotus]

Glad to hear that.

I'm not sure what else to say, I like cops wearing white shirts and being polite. I'm not a fan these guys wearing bullet vests over their uniforms to do traffic stops.

I agree on this, but to a fault. I despise the paramilitarization of some police units on a personal level. I would like to have a plain ole joe with a badge, a hat, and a gun. I think if my daughter was lost in public somewhere and she had to approach a friendly face or a friendly uniform she'd likely not go to the police officer on duty with an AR slung over his shoulder, laced boots, and a black jumpsuit. I think the police do need to respond to the state of the world, and a simple vest isnt that big of a deal, however the former example..not so much so. If officers need to dress like that in a town, what am I to do? Its not reassuring I'll tell you.

 

[Half Cocked]

she'd likely not go to the police officer on duty with an AR slung over his shoulder, laced boots, and a black jumpsuit. If officers need to dress like that in a town, what am I to do? Its not reassuring I'll tell you.

While I agree with you I would also like to know which Towns have police who dress that way?

I am in a different Town all the time around the State and have yet to see any with the exception of K9, Airwing etc......

 

[EddieCoyle]

They do not hold up if the only justification is fear of destruction of evidence.

Cool. Please enlighten us and show us one instance where a no-knock has been denied when there was no risk of harm to officers, but where the fear of destruction of evidence existed. Seriously, how can someone be suspected of dealing drugs, be deemed willing to destroy evidence, and NOT be somehow construed as not willing to take a shot at someone breaking down the F-ing door unannounced?

Seriously, for the love of God, how the F can you justify this? I don't deal drugs, I don't destroy evidence, but if somebody breaks down my door unannounced, I'm going to do my damnedest to shoot them as as hard as I can; whether I'm deemed (without my knowledge) to be a danger to officers or not.

What you do is a self fulfilling prophecy - If we bust down the door unannounced, they might shoot at us, so they're a danger to officers. I'll tell you what, let somebody dressed in black kick your F-ing door in while you're half asleep, screaming unintelligibly at the top of their lungs, and let you decide.

This is why cops are called jack-booted thugs. You can make anything you do "right" by the fact that you're doing it in the first place, and that it works sometimes (or most of the time).

The more I read your posts, the less I like you, but I'm still afraid that you're going to break down my door sometime. Is that the effect you're trying for? If that's so, kudos to you sir, you've done your job, now just stay the F out of West Groton.

 

[Half Cocked]

Cool. Please enlighten us and show us one instance where a no-knock has been denied when there was no risk of harm to officers, but where the fear destruction of evidence existed.

It happens frequently...but you do not hear about them because they are denied.

I have been involved in cases where No-Knocks have been denied.

 

[clinotus]

While I agree with you I would also like to know which Towns have police who dress that way?

I am in a different Town all the time around the State and have yet to see any with the exception of K9, Airwing etc......

No specifics or particular towns to mention. I'm just attempting to highlight the differences between an approachable officer with a vest on vs the intimidating officer with what appears to be a miniature tactical layout.

Though I'm fairly certain some people would not really approach a K-9 unit as well.

 

[Half Cocked]

Though I'm fairly certain some people would not really approach a K-9 unit as well.

Yeah...I am one of them!! But that is because of the dog!

 

[Raoul Duke]

Actually, you have it wrong. Unless in your mind the FBI is a terrorist organization, which makes you... well... you get it.

Not sure how that makes sense, since this guy was a legally employed FBI agent who was doing their job against suspected anti-gov and terrorist individuals. Now, if you guys feel that you are on the side of the Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Timothy McVeigh people, then yeah, be upset. I on the other hand am a law abiding citizen, and so I have nothing against this guy or HS precision for that fact. I like our government agencies who are out to destroy terrorist groups. Didn't realize that to you, FBI was Osama. That seems very un-american to me.

I'll continue to keep buying their product, because seemingly they arm our law enforcement. The law enforcement that fights terrorism.

are you looking for investment opportunities?

 

[EddieCoyle]

It happens frequently...but you do not hear about them because they are denied.

I have been involved in cases where No-Knocks have been denied.

So, when everything else fits (drug dealing, risk of losing evidence, etc) these warrants are "frequently" denied only because there's no danger to officers? I find this very hard to believe, especially considering that you guys make your own "danger".

By the way...

Nice job avoiding the rest of my comments.

 

[Half Cocked]

I don't believe you.

By the way...

Nice job avoiding the rest of my comments.

Why would I bother responding? You called me a liar. Enough said.

Unlike you, I do not stoop to the level of personal attacks. I attempt to maintain a level of professionalism as some would hold me to a higher standard. I would also expect the same from a forum moderator.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I edited my post above to clarify, apparently at the same time you were posting. I didn't mean to call you a liar, I'm sure no-knocks are denied, I just find it hard to believe that they are denied solely for the lack of dangerousness when everything else "fits".

 

[Half Cocked]

I'm sure no-knocks are denied, I just find it hard to believe that they are denied solely for the lack of dangerousness when everything else "fits".

They are denied for that reason frequently...you can choose to not believe that if you wish but I have personally seen it. Have you?

I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.

 

[depicts]

a couple of quick points, not strictly related to prior posts.

1) I am deaf. When I take my hearing aids out at night, I depend on my dog to alert me if there is noise or movement around the house. A team of circus clowns could enter my house and I wouldn't hear them. Now if a police unit came into my house while my hearing aids were on the nightstand, and my dog alerted, I'd open my safe, grab a gun and be ready. The police could yell "POLICE" all they wanted, I'd never hear it. If they didn't have big white glowing letters on their uniforms, I'm probably going to defend myself.

2) I would not want to wear a badge in public without wearing a bullet proof vest. I don't care if it's on the inside or the outside of my shirt, I would have one on.

3) Maybe I'm the only one who trust my military and most police, but after 911, when I was at a few airports, and soldiers and cops were patrolling the area carrying M16's and such, I felt GOOD about it. I had no fear of those people, who were putting themselves on the line to protect me... just in case. Someone carrying a gun doesn't scare me.

4) If I had a child, and I taught them to go to a policeman if they ever had a problem (which I did with my family), it would not bother me one bit if the officer, trooper or sheriff were wearing a vest outside their clothes. You teach your children how to identify our public servants. The vest isn't scary to a kid... it's what it is... part of the uniform. A badge, the word police and a vest makes it pretty easy, even for a 3 or 4 year old to identify a policeman.

 

[bishop375]

1) I am deaf. When I take my hearing aids out at night, I depend on my dog to alert me if there is noise or movement around the house. A team of circus clowns could enter my house and I wouldn't hear them. Now if a police unit came into my house while my hearing aids were on the nightstand, and my dog alerted, I'd open my safe, grab a gun and be ready. The police could yell "POLICE" all they wanted, I'd never hear it. If they didn't have big white glowing letters on their uniforms, I'm probably going to defend myself.

What if they spot you while you've got the gun in your hand, and open fire because you're a "threat?" You would have been a victim of gross oversight that left you... dead. The concept of a no-knock warrant, when there's no obvious motion inside the building, with very little PROOF that there's a legitimate target inside is a very, very dangerous concept.

2) I would not want to wear a badge in public without wearing a bullet proof vest. I don't care if it's on the inside or the outside of my shirt, I would have one on.

3) Maybe I'm the only one who trust my military and most police, but after 911, when I was at a few airports, and soldiers and cops were patrolling the area carrying M16's and such, I felt GOOD about it. I had no fear of those people, who were putting themselves on the line to protect me... just in case. Someone carrying a gun doesn't scare me.

4) If I had a child, and I taught them to go to a policeman if they ever had a problem (which I did with my family), it would not bother me one bit if the officer, trooper or sheriff were wearing a vest outside their clothes. You teach your children how to identify our public servants. The vest isn't scary to a kid... it's what it is... part of the uniform. A badge, the word police and a vest makes it pretty easy, even for a 3 or 4 year old to identify a policeman.

I'm all for them wearing armor. I've got no problem with them carrying M16's, UMP's, MP5's, or anything when protecting federal property or airports. That's fine. It's when they're storming the wrong houses and apartments and slaughtering innocent people that things start to get... fuzzy.

The Ruby Ridge incident is an example of shoot first, maybe ask some questions later. And that attitude needs to change.

 

[Matt Hill]

Actually, you have it wrong. Unless in your mind the FBI is a terrorist organization, which makes you... well... you get it.

Not sure how that makes sense, since this guy was a legally employed FBI agent who was doing their job against suspected anti-gov and terrorist individuals. Now, if you guys feel that you are on the side of the Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Timothy McVeigh people, then yeah, be upset. I on the other hand am a law abiding citizen, and so I have nothing against this guy or HS precision for that fact. I like our government agencies who are out to destroy terrorist groups. Didn't realize that to you, FBI was Osama. That seems very un-american to me.

I'll continue to keep buying their product, because seemingly they arm our law enforcement. The law enforcement that fights terrorism.

Your comment is disgusting. Murder is murder and done under the color of law makes it worse not better.

 

[Mass-diver]

Again, I respect your viewpoint, it's nice to find someone who trusts the government. Although I must admit, your post reads a little strangely in the middle of a thread about a Federal Agent who shot an unarmed woman, not during the heat of battle, but during the standoff. These guys thought they were soldiers fighting an enemy. In reality, they are employees of the federal government out shooting innocent people over a trumped up gun charge.

For me, I don't want my local cops dressed up like soldiers. I don't like the camo vests on the outside, I don't like thigh holsters, and all black hats. I think they would be just fine with .357s and shotguns. I see lots of cops at the range, I barely trust them with a glock .40, never mind an MP5! People that don't have the training to carry guns scares me plenty! I don't want my local cop to into some paramilitary guy turned loose on scumbag civilians. No thanks!

a couple of quick points, not strictly related to prior posts.

2) I would not want to wear a badge in public without wearing a bullet proof vest. I don't care if it's on the inside or the outside of my shirt, I would have one on.

3) Maybe I'm the only one who trust my military and most police, but after 911, when I was at a few airports, and soldiers and cops were patrolling the area carrying M16's and such, I felt GOOD about it. I had no fear of those people, who were putting themselves on the line to protect me... just in case. Someone carrying a gun doesn't scare me.

 

[Skald]

3) Maybe I'm the only one who trust my military and most police, but after 911, when I was at a few airports, and soldiers and cops were patrolling the area carrying M16's and such, I felt GOOD about it. I had no fear of those people, who were putting themselves on the line to protect me... just in case. Someone carrying a gun doesn't scare me.

Not sure about other places, but for Detroit Metro the NG troops were nothing more than show for the most part. Yes some of them did have ammo, but not that many (at least for the unit my friend was the armorer of in Michigan when they had to pull duty at the airport). To be clear, my friend volunteered the info in our talk about his upcoming stint at Detroit Metro, and after working with the guy the one thing he doesn't joke around with/at is his NG service.

 

[FalArAk]

I haven't read though the rest of the thread (yet) but I left you negative rep points for this post. Go ahead and leave them back for me.

This post is reprehensible. Seriously. If you believe even one iota in freedom or in the rights guaranteed us by the Constitution, you would not post this. Do your research.

Over the years here,I am convinced this site is comprised of about 25-35% Liberals (MA Republicans),that just happen to be gun owners.Owning a gun does not make you a Conservative or Republican.

I don't need anybody to look out for my best interest..I don't need anyone to tell me about the legality of anything if I am not asking for input,yet people still feel the need inject some sort of internet parenting bullshit.

How many times has someone put up a WTS ad and people reply with "Are you suuuuure that's pre-ban?" I'm sure with no intention of even buying the product.

 

[Jose]

I like cops wearing white shirts and being polite. I'm not a fan these guys wearing bullet vests over their uniforms to do traffic stops.

 

[Jose]

While I agree with you I would also like to know which Towns have police who dress that way?

NYC, for one.

 

[Half Cocked]

NYC, for one.

They are not patrol officers they are ESU officers on a special detail. If you read my post I excluded specialized units such as K9, SWAT etc...

 

[Admin]

Email from Tommy Millner at Remington:

Because its thanksgiving and everyone is off, we have not made contact with HS. We have taken any reference to HS from our web site..

When you first emailed me I honestly did not recall horiuchi's name so you caught me unawares. I also do not read the blogs so the fact there was an issue came as a surpise.

In any event, HS makes a great product and we are a large customer of theirs. Why they would pick a super controversial spokesperson is beyond me. Doing this violates pure business common sense. Early next week we will use whatever persuasive powers at our disposal to get HS to do the right thing..

Do me a favor and tell those on the bolgs that Remington and I are now fully aware of the issue, in full agreement with the outrage, and will do what we can t exert pressure on HS to reverse course.

Thanks

Tommy

 

[Mikey]

Re: Remington
Lets hope they are not just blowing smoke...

I don't know how I missed this thread but it was pretty hard to get through, some of it was down right scary to read.

 

[Nickle]

How completely distasteful.

H-S does more business with the gov.org than civvies, I don't think that this will hurt them too much. Lotsof gun owners think the Weavers (and Davidians) got what they deserved.

Distaseful, certainly.

Considering that H-S is second rate crap, IMNSHO, makes it easier to see why, as they sell their garbage stocks to folks like Remington and Savage.

A nice note to Remington might be in order here.

And, yeah, mark me down as another McMillan fan. I've got a McMillan on my "serious .308", along with a Rem 600 action, Hart barrel and 6-24 Mil-Dot scope.

And, FWIW, the BenchRest boys use a LOT of McMillan's, as do the Marines (M40 series). The Army uses what Remington gave them (M24), and they're phasing those out anyways, going to Knight rifles (M110).

Lots of those gun owners will never have the guts to buy a rifle with either an H-S or McMillan stock.

 

[RG617]

Mistakes were made, surely, and it is a very sad thing. Very. But you have to look at the overall goal in mind. I'm not going to stop supporting the FBI, this country, or an American manufacturer because of a terrible mistake. These things happen whenever conflicts arise. There are always casualties in any fight, which is extremely unfortunate. But do we just give up after that, throw in towel. Arrest our soldiers/police, let the other side win? That sounds like liberal talk to me. No, you suck it up, learn from mistakes, and try to do better next time. We don't hang our people out to dry. This guy was doing his job, the one he was trained to do, and a tragedy occurred. But you weren't there, you have no idea of the situation, the stress, or other factors involved. I'm sure he didn't want that outcome either, and he has to live with it. But he was found not guilty, and I believe in the US system, and I support that ruling.

If you believe in the system so much, why are you so quick to allow Horiuchi a free pass when you damn well know any one of us would probably still be in prison for negligence? You know, one of the first four things I learned when I was first handed a .22 rifle at my local 'Y' camp was that you ALWAYS be aware of your backstop and what's beyond it. By your interpretation, it's ok to take a blind shot through a wall or door into a dwelling with a .308 even though you know there's a woman and infant in there as long as you're doing it in the name of the greater good.... even if that greater good is simply to arrest a man on trumped up and relatively minor charges when compared to an unnecessary loss of life. I call utter bu!!shit. If he was doing the job he "was trained to do", he would have known better than to take that shot with the information he had in hand. If anything, his training holds him to a higher standard than a regular citizen. If I were to fire a blind, assumed shot at an armed intruder through a half closed door and that round went into the next apartment and god forbid killed a neighbor holding a baby, do you think the case would be dismissed? Do you think I should be held to a different set of standards and laws than a man who has fired thousands of rounds more than I have, has much more training, had the luxury of time and distance on his side while making the shot, but just so happens to be a federal agent? Calling talk of arresting cops or soldiers who f_ck up royally or break the rules "liberal talk" sounds like the words of a straight up fascist, IMO. Screw the right to life and liberty if it's an individual representative of a government or local authority that says so, right? You're trying so hard to wave the flag that you don't realize that you're wiping your ass with the Constitution in the process.

And for the record, I'm a conservative Democrat who loves his country but isn't stupid enough to do so blindly.

They are not patrol officers they are ESU officers on a special detail. If you read my post I excluded specialized units such as K9, SWAT etc...

Exclusion can be pretty arbitrary depending on the viewpoint.

Saying that K9, Tac, or drug entry officers don't take part in regular patrols in any (or actually most) town/city/county/state is not only flat out wrong but also a simple way to try and skew the argument in your favor. Specific training or assignment doesn't give them a free pass, especially in this day and age when many specially trained officers are patrolmen until a situation arises where they're needed. I haven't really decided on an overall opinion on the subject of police being on patrol in borderline military gear since part of me likes an added level of security to deter the bad guys yet part of me understands that when people get used to having such security around it creates a power gap and comfort level between those in uniform and the citizenry that can be very unhealthy. I try to adhere to the old axiom, "Physician, heal thyself" since I prefer to play a large role in any issue involving my personal self-defense, but I also understand that makes me a minority in this day and age.

 

[Nickle]

Re: Remington
Lets hope they are not just blowing smoke...

I don't know how I missed this thread but it was pretty hard to get through, some of it was down right scary to read.

Trust me, they will.

They are one of the companies that does far mor ecivilian than government business, and even though they have a nice deal with H-S, they will dump them over this crap, if they can't persuade them to dump their bozo.

They were one of the first to dump Zumbo, and they made no bones about it.

Now, I'm predicting H-S keeps him, as from what I see, a big part of their business has been the government, even the military. Know that the military has pretty well withdrawn their product from use, due to finding better products (Knight) in the mean time. And those military products that had H-S stocks? They were one of the few that Remington has done in recent time.

I also see that this thread has brought a troll or two into view.

I'll ask everybody to give Half-Cocked some credit here. Regardless of his views on warrants, he condemns Horiuchi about as much as the rest of us do. He clearly stated that numerous times.

 

[theGringo]

You know, one of the first four things I learned when I was first handed a .22 rifle at my local 'Y' camp was that you ALWAYS be aware of your backstop and what's beyond it. By your interpretation, it's ok to take a blind shot through a wall or door into a dwelling with a .308 even though you know there's a woman and infant in there as long as you're doing it in the name of the greater good.... even if that greater good is simply to arrest a man on trumped up and relatively minor charges when compared to an unnecessary loss of life. I call utter bu!!shit.

Did Lon Horiuchi not know what was behind the cabin door, and thus was guilty only of a negligent act? In the book Every Knee Shall Bow you will find a diagram that Horiuchi sketched out, on a notepad provided by West Coast Hotels, the day after the standoff ended.

The sketch shows the intended target, Kevin Harris, as a stick figure with a "mil dot" inscribed at what would be center torso.

It also shows, just beyond Harris, the cabin door window with two heads clearly visible behind the window. In testimony, it was claimed that the sniper Horiuchi couldn't see through the window.

The trial judge fined the FBI for witholding this important piece of evidence until late in the trial. It was just one of many acts of obfuscation that were exposed during trial, and this is why no defense witnesses were needed.

No one who educates himself on the truth of what happened at Ruby Ridge will ever take for granted the righteousness of law enforcement.

 

[nanerclip]

This is a great video, there are a 3 or 4 of them in the series, it's long, but VERY good (ignore the tin foil stuff). Part 1...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HwjO3lpRq4


The way the Feds handled Ruby Ridge was SICK! @#&% Horiuchi! The guy is a LOW LIFE!

 

[clinotus]

a couple of quick points, not strictly related to prior posts.

1) I am deaf. When I take my hearing aids out at night, I depend on my dog to alert me if there is noise or movement around the house. A team of circus clowns could enter my house and I wouldn't hear them. Now if a police unit came into my house while my hearing aids were on the nightstand, and my dog alerted, I'd open my safe, grab a gun and be ready. The police could yell "POLICE" all they wanted, I'd never hear it. If they didn't have big white glowing letters on their uniforms, I'm probably going to defend myself.

This is the major point for the dissent on some of the raid tactics utilized with raids and served warrants. The officers certainly know the state of the world and thusly have prepared themselves for their safety and the safety of their teammates; in fact above and beyond as they have access to the best tools for the job at hand: Fully automatic weapons, flash grenades, and APC units or vans.

You know the state of the world and thusly prepared yourself for the defense of your home and family with whichever tools you have, a shotgun, perhaps a rifle and a handgun.

Both of you are on a collision course if the wrong information is in play.

They might need to capture a felon living at #23 Main street, but along the way the orders got mixed up and they are outside your house, #230.

And its about to hit the fan in a few minutes...