In recent years three violent incidents have kept us riveted to our TV screens, the beating of Rodney King, the brick to the head of Reginald Denny, and 100 deaths in Waco, Texas.
The Branch Davidians did it to themselves; Rodney King did not deserve it.
Reginald Denny was in the wrong place at the wrong time; the Branch Davidians owned the land.
We see a difference in the way the cases are viewed. The Branch Davidians were demonized in the public mind before the facts became known. It is still not common public knowledge that the Branch Davidians were faced with one hundred shouting, armed men throwing grenades who intended to secure the compound and then identify themselves and serve their search warrant.
I can only wonder what degree of saints were expected to offer themselves to the grenades with patience and humility.
It is granted they were stun grenades and not fragmentation grenades but the very law the BATF enforces makes no distinction between them, calling both types destructive devices and equally illegal. It is difficult to see how anyone can make the distinction between the two while on the receiving end of grenades designed to disorient.
It is considered for some reason evil that the police hit Rodney King 38 times with batons. At the same time there is no problem at all with over 200 gas grenades being shot into the second floor of the Branch Davidian complex specifically to gas the children. Then Director of the FBI Sessions testified to this in Congress. I find myself at a loss to deal with the differences in public perception.
Reginald Denny had a brick smashed into his head. The Branch Davidians had a tank driven through the wall of their home. Would it have made a difference if Denny had been warned before the brick? Who was on the other side of that wall? Does anyone care?
Rather perhaps they all brought it on themselves in the oldest tradition of blaming the victim. It would then appear obvious that King invited the beating by resisting arrest; Denny invited the murder attempt by being white; the Branch Davidians invited the attack by buying legal items. I am still at a loss to understand.
What did happen at Waco? Simple to explain. The BATF perjured itself and mislead the magistrate to obtain a warrant. It staged a media event. It failed to serve its warrant. It cried foul and ran off crying to the FBI.
The FBI did not negotiate in good faith. They worked as hard as they could to destablize a man they announced was unstable. They decided it was better to drive tanks through walls than to wait it out as their own policy dictates.
The problem is the public reaction. In this case it is divided along the lines of those who followed the facts as reported and those who followed the interpretations. Those who followed the interpretations support the government position. Those who followed the facts condemn the government in its actions against the Branch Davidians.
If you looked at the fact of one hundred, screaming armed men throwing grenades you were appalled. If you believed the BATF's lie of a .50 cal machinegun in the tower you likely thought all those men were a good idea. If you asked for yourself about child abuse you would have found those rumors were discounted. If you listened to the BATF's lie about child abuse you might have thought there was justification. If you listened to the tape showing the Branch Davidians were trying to negotiate a cease fire you might have some sympathy for them. If you listened to the BATF's lie of their aranging a cease fire you might have thought if was the BATF that wanted to stop the shooting.
It appears clear the difference in opinion on the BATF at Waco is whether or not you believed the lies. The BATF story did make some sense for a couple days until you stepped back from the coverage and asked, "What did they do?" So far as we can tell, nothing.