Idaho Standoff Continues
June 1, 2001 9:36 PM   Subscribe

Idaho Standoff Continues and while it may seem easy to view this as another Ruby Ridge, the differences in opinions that are coming up in the news reports are fairly interesting. The cops claim they are being attacked with guns and dogs while the lawyer for the children [who is consistently referred to as a man who has defended the Aryan nation] denies most of the allegations. Are they starving and cold, or do they have food and heat? Did their mother abuse them, or just try to homeschool them? And, most importantly, are you allowed to be poor, weird and paranoid nowadays without being labelled a criminal?
posted by jessamyn (14 comments total)
nobody's labelled me a criminal yet and i've been poor, weird and paranoid for years!
posted by donkeysuck at 10:08 PM on June 1, 2001

but do you have a .30-.30, a mini-16 or an SKS or two.
...poor,weird and paranoid...? That sounds like 3/4 of howard hughes.
posted by clavdivs at 10:41 PM on June 1, 2001


let us wait till the whole story comes out . sorry jess..

sleepy time
posted by perogi at 10:58 PM on June 1, 2001

If you've made it to the age of majority and are going through life poor, weird and paranoid by your own choice, well, as long as you abide by the bare minimums of acceptable behaviour (don't negatively impact other people and pay your taxes) you'll probably be left alone. But mess up kid's lives and action will (um, ah, ...often?) be taken. Not necessarily good action, but action....
posted by BGM at 10:59 PM on June 1, 2001

"The situation reached a crisis on Tuesday, when JoAnn McGuckin was offered cash and a trip to the store by deputies. She was subsequently arrested on a warrant charging felony injury of a child - a charge authorities have refused to elaborate on."

I'd be paranoid if I were those kids right now, too. I don't think you even need to have a history of paranoia to decide that the authorities are evil and will say *anything* in order to trick you into being arrested.


I think this is one of those stories that we won't get all of until after it's all been resolved.

I see no reason to believe that this is going to turn into a firefight; authorities have been quoted from the beginning as saying they were going to be patient and wait until the kids come out.

as I understand it, two siblings are now helping ot negotiate with the remaining children. I hope they can talk them down soon.

posted by rebeccablood at 11:30 PM on June 1, 2001

Can they get re-runs of Mr Rogers on TV?
posted by Postroad at 7:10 AM on June 2, 2001

perogi what, you mefi messiah, let us wait./? lets us not post?. Hell this story was almost over before some one linked it.
posted by clavdivs at 8:08 AM on June 2, 2001

Well, certainly you can be poor, weird and paranoid...but I think the "criminal" aspect came in when they released the feral dogs and took up arms. I honestly don't believe, previous history aside, that law enforcement is thinking of these children as "criminal" -- more likely they're thinking they're endangered (by themselves and the now escalated situation.)

Their mother was arrested on child abuse charges...well, abusing your child is a criminal act and not nearly punished enough for my taste, so if the accusations are true then "poor, weird and paranoid" becomes irrelevant.

I think perhaps the larger question raised by this is: is it child abuse (whether through endangerment or a more subtle "psychic messing around") to raise your children in a climate of fear, paranoia and potential violence in the belief that the outside world is evil?
posted by ltracey at 9:49 AM on June 2, 2001

Oh yeah? What are you going to do? Release the hounds? Or the bees? Or the hounds with bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you?

sorry, was I free-associating?
posted by jpoulos at 10:33 AM on June 2, 2001

I think that's my point ltracey, guns are still legal to own in many ways, and so are dogs. I think if the Mom was beating the children, that is one thing. If she is homeschooling them, that is another. If they're malnourished and victimized, then there is precedent for the state stepping in. What amazes me is that there's been media on the scene for days now and no one can get [or will report] a clear picture of what the heck is going on. Because -- my opinions here -- they can't get a good hook on how these people are living, what their views are, why they might be the way they are, without resorting to the old tired "crazy people holed up in house, cops trying to be voice of reason!" headlines.
posted by jessamyn at 11:39 AM on June 2, 2001

how about robotic dogs with bees in their mouths. dress a few mannequins in Postal uniforms for a diversion then drop in through the tree fort.
posted by clavdivs at 2:36 PM on June 2, 2001

Well, certainly you can be poor, weird and paranoid...but I think the "criminal" aspect came in when they released the feral dogs and took up arms.

It's not illegal to take up arms. And one can't release 'feral dogs' as dogs that are feral are wild by definition.

I honestly don't believe, previous history aside, that law enforcement is thinking of these children as "criminal" -- more likely they're thinking they're endangered (by themselves and the now escalated situation.)

This isn't Ruby Ridge, clearly. But I don't blame these kids. I don't want the police or govt. agents on my doorstep, either.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:18 PM on June 2, 2001

Listen, not everyone lives in the damn suburbs. There are still many areas in this country where people live this way. They increasingly find it more and more difficult to adjust to today's society and expectations, which are based on the majority of this country's population.

I am fortunate enough to have lived in many different kinds of societies and environments. Everything from a small backwoods town in South Dakota (population: 10 people) where you had to drive 50 miles just to get groceries to a village on an island in the South Pacific where the natives outnumbered you ten to one.

I am increasingly disgusted by the narrow-minded thinking of authorities in this country who automatically treat anyone different from the norm as "suspicious". Our society is to blame, because it is responsible for setting the laws that the authorities follow.

These kids should have been left alone. Instead of trying to "collect" the children, the authorities should have sent a health care representative and family friend to the house to make sure everything was OK. Going in with the immediate intent of removing the children from the only home they've ever known is simply the wrong thing to do. Going in, making sure they were OK, and then explaining to the children what's going on is a much better idea. Showing force, which seems to be the authority's bone-headed modus operandi, led to this "stand-off."
posted by camworld at 3:36 PM on June 3, 2001

You have to wonder about the level of deceit practiced here. It's become second nature for our local, state and even federal agencies to lie to people they suspect of something, and while I understand the ideal is to avoid their agents being placed at risk. However, in this case, not only do they end up looking like they're using Gestapo tactics (I mean, offering a desperate woman money and a trip to the store and then arresting her...whatever their motives, it was cruel.) and it makes it less likely that those kids are going to talk to them. I know that it is likely that they had no such intention of creating any situation like this, but here it is.

It's a complicated case, of course, and I don't have the answer. But I think in this case, the safety and rights of the people involved, suspect, victim and agent, should have been considered equally.
posted by Ezrael at 8:44 PM on June 3, 2001

« Older McCain considering whether to leave GOP   |   Nepal's Crown Prince Dipendra kills family, self... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments