From: [s c hillin] at [spock.usc.edu] (John Schilling)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: In defense of Lon Horiuchi
Date: 3 Mar 1995 17:23:18 -0800

[j--rd--n] at [aero.org] (Larry M. Jordan) writes:

>Here's a followup article from Joseph Sobran, columnist.

>Joseph Sobran
>In defense of Lon Horiuchi


This article deserves attention.  The right of the accused to a fair
trial, to defend himself against accusation and to secure competent
representation for such purpose, is highly regarded in our society.
Since the only trial Lon Horiuchi is likely to recieve is in the
court of Public Opinion, it is here that his defense must take place.

So while I may not agree with him, I commend Mr. Sobron for his efforts,
and Mr. Jordan for posting the result here.  


And now, for the rebuttal.


[Introduction, synopsis of Weaver incident]


>Civil libertarians of the left and libertarians of the right still wonder
>why Mr. Weaver should have been a target of federal government at all.
>Be that as it may, Mr. Horiuchi came into this drama in the middle stages,
>presumably believing the official story (later disproved in court) that
>Mr. Weaver's group had started the gunfight in which the marshal was
>killed.  His friends contend plausibly that he assumed he was dealing
>with murderous fanatics.


A valid point.  If Horiuchi was misinformed or decieved, by people he 
reasonably believed to be trustworthy, he cannot be held accountable
for actions taken in unavoidable ignorance.  The blame, in such a case,
would fall on those who decieved him.

The question then becomes, would Horiuchi's actions have been justifiable
had the misinformation been true?


In this country, we do not kill a man because of what he has done in the 
past, unless he has recieved a fair trial and been duly sentenced to death.
And, while the state of Idaho does allow for execution by firing squad in
some cases, it is absurd to assume that Horiuchi believed himself to be
conducting a legal execution pursuant to due process of law.

Another thing we absolutely do not do here is to kill someone because of
what they might do in the future.  Such an extreme form of prior restraint
is absolutely intolerable in any free society.

The decision to kill can only be justified if it is to prevent an imminent 
or ongoing threat to innocent life, or perhaps to some moral principle we
may hold as dear as life itself.   But no suspected past behavior or possible
future threat can justify murder.  


So no, it really doesn't seem to matter what Horiuchi's superiors told him
about earlier events.  Even if Weaver et al *had* been murderous fanatics,
and *had* killed a marshall without provocation, Horiouchi would not have
been justified in shooting them at a time when they posed no immediate 
threat to anyone.  


>Mr. Horiuchi insisted later that he had killed Mrs. Weaver by accident.
>For what it's worth, the government's own investigation eventually cleared
>him of intentionally shooting her.  


As I recall, the Justice Department investigation ultimately recommended
criminal prosecution of those involved in the incident, which prosecution
might well have settled the nature of the shooting once and for all.  It
was an entirely arbitrary decision by FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney
General Janet Reno which "cleared" Horiuchi and friends on all counts,
contrary to the Justice Department's recommendation.

At any rate, the physical evidence introduced in the trial of Randy Weaver
and Kevin Harris does not support the "it was an accident" excuse.  The
fatal bullet struck Harris *after* passing through Vicki Weaver's face,
indicating that Vicki was in *front* of Kevin.  Horiuchi's claim that he
was shooting at Harris, and could not see Mrs. Weaver, is not plausible.
Vicki's face, not Kevin's, must have been centered in Horiuchi's sights
and if some quirk of lighting or partial concealment prevented Horiuchi 
from seeing Mrs. Weaver in his line of fire, then he certainly could not
have seen Kevin Harris.

Either he deliberately shot Vicki Weaver in the head, or he recklessly
fired blind into an occupied home.  And there is the pesky little problem
that, even if we take his statement at face value, he had no more cause 
to shoot at Kevin Harris than Vicki Weaver.  So, at best, we are debating
which of two innocent people Horiuchi was trying to murder.


>It means more to me that people like
>Jeffrey Rubin believe him.  Whatever the full truth may be, Mr. Horiuchi
>and his family are paying for the affair; they face civil and criminal
>lawsuits, social ostracism, and the public obloquy to which my column
>has contributed its part.


Mr. Horiuchi is very definitely *not* facing criminal prosecution; I am
uncertain what is meant by "criminal lawsuits".  Civil suits, ostracism,
etc?  Possibly, but since when has a murderer been absolved of his crimes
merely because he was sued, and villified in the press?  If in fact the
charges against Horiuchi are valid, he is lucky to have gotten off with
only his reputation and his bank accout damaged.


>I hate to think I may have compounded the suffering of a man who acted in
>good faith and didn't mean to hurt the innocent.  In one respect, I know
>I misjudged Mr. Horiuchi's character: He is anything but an unethical
>servant of the state that employs him.

>ACCORDING TO Jeff Rubin, Mr. Horiuchi is a devout Catholic (an adult
>convert) and an ardent conservative.  He has deep reservations about the
>federal government itself.  He and his wife consider abortion a horror
>and hope he won't be assigned to protect abortion clinics.  They school
>their children at home, because, as Mr. Rubin puts it, "their view of
>the public school system is such that they would sooner put their kids
>into the public sewer system."

>In short, Mr. Horiuchi's view of the U.S. government, in some respects, is
>strikingly like Randy Weaver's.  But he accepts the government, for all its
>faults, as essentially legitimate.  And that point of difference led to a
>horrible tragedy that has maimed both men's lives.


Hearsay squared, and thus of questionable validity, but let us accept it
for the moment.  Certainly Horiuchi would appear an unlikely candidate for
a government assassin.  Yet actions speak louder than words, and Horiuchi's
actions do indeed mark him as an assassin.  Notwithstanding his "deep
reservations about the federal government", the man did shoot at people
who posed no immediate threat to anyone, and for no other reason than
that officials of that same federal government told him to.


>Here is ghastly evidence that curbing the power of the federal government
>is more than an exercise in constitutional pedantry.  The power of the state
>is ultimately the power to kill.  The reasons and conditions of that power
>must be extremely sound and clear, and the restraints on it must be so
>powerful as to daunt any offical who may be tempted to abuse it.  Those
>who are assigned enforce it are entitled to assurance that they are acting
>justly.


On this, at least, we can agree.  Notwithstanding the behavior of Lon
Horiuchi, the Federal Government itself has much to answer for in this
matter.  Those who ordered the assassination are at least as responsible 
as the man who carried it out.


>REPREHENSIBLY AS THE government has acted in the Weaver case, I shouldn't
>have made Lon Horiuchi the eponym of its persecution.  His heart rending
>story should stand as a lesson to anyone contemplating a career in federal
>law enforcement in an age when the federal government knows no limits.


As is, Mr. Sobran makes a strong case for leniency in sentencing, but he
has not succeeded in absolving Lon Horiuchi of responsibility for the
murder of Vicki Weaver and attempted murder of Randy Weaver and Kevin
Harris.  The fact remains that, for whatever reason, Lon Horiuchi did
deliberately fire a rifle at several people, none of whom seemed to pose
any immediate threat to him or to anyone else.


It occurs to me that Sobran's defense suffers for its second-hand nature.
Perhaps Mr. Horiuchi would like to take up the matter himself, and address
some of the issues involved directly?


--
*John Schilling                    * "You can have Peace,	       *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP       * or you can have Freedom.	       *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both   *
*Aerospace Engineering Department  * at the same time."                *
*[s c hillin] at [spock.usc.edu]            *          - Robert A. Heinlein     *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527        * Finger for PGP public key         *