Tom Crosslin, owner of the controversial Rainbow Farm Campground in Cass County, and his companion, Rolland Rohm, both were shot and killed by law enforcement officials, ending a five-day standoff.

Now there are questions, some perhaps never to be answered.

My reference to getting a job in corporate America was used to draw an comparison to the people that have to be dealt with in the course of making the change. Self-employment was hardly the issue I was trying to address, and I suspect you know it.

As for hair length, mine had to be cut short after I began to lose major portions of it - but ponytails are just fine with me. I'm afraid, however, they would not be just fine with the people who have the power to help change the situation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Its all very well to discuss philosophy and work for free and be a humanitarian. The people who engage themselves in selfless activity are, indeed, to be lauded.

But - and here's the big but (I wish you knew how tempted I am to say butt!) - my goal, and I hope this is shared by at least some of us on the board, is to change the laws so that we may be assured of civil liberties. Thats it. At this point, nothing else matters. I don't care about debating granny, or FoM, MDG or anybody about any of the nuances of the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the WOD. Nobody wins these arguments - everybody has their opinions, and everybody is entitled to them.

Bottom line - are we in agreement that the WOD needs to end?
If we're not, then I'm talking to the wrong crowd; and I'll move to other forums. If we are, then we'd better be using our cycles to figure out HOW thats going to happen.

Remember Jesse Helms not running? Guess who plans to take his place - Elizabeth Dole. How many people here realize that she's a hardliner, and will escalate the WOD? Don't you think its time to get to work?

I ran into the same such reverse prejudice when I went to college. Because I didn't use cannabis then, I was on the outs. And never allowed to forget that. Particularly by my roomie (whose Probation Officer would visit the off-campus housing we were living in, endangering all of us with his past and present indiscretions) and his fair-weather friends.

But did it sour me? I respectfully submit not. I was a practicing Libertarian even then, before I even knew there was such a thing as the Lib Party. The principles of live and let live were inculcated in me long ago, by my own family. To behave towards others as they had towards me was unthinkable, a sentiment many of us here share.

But it taught me a valuable lesson in the mechanics of repression. Namely, no group is safe from sliding into the very behavior pattern they abhor in others. No group. Not even ours.

Without putting too fine a point on it, many of us who are hippies on the inside know only too well the cost of showing it on the outside. We see what happens to those who do - as has been noted by other posters here.

The ugly reality of American life is that the 'tolerance' that the average American is supposed to possess regarding differing life-styles simply doesn't exist. Different speech patterns, different dress...different choice of intoxicant...is equated with 'dangerous'. You know it and I know it.

So why stoke the fears of the sheep and hand ammunition to our enemies?

We will not get what we want - ever! by doing what our enemies expect us to do. They expect us to dress and behave 'outlandishly' - as they view it, and as the 'norms' of society dictate as being 'appropriate'. They expect us to be inarticulate, or scattering our speech with 'doperisms'. And I repeat: far too many of us in the past have provided that 'aid and comfort to the enemy' by doing so.

We have an enormous potential, friends. I've said this before: if only ten percent of us - 10 million cannabis users - became monetarily and politically active, we'd be unstoppable. "Monetarily"? you ask. Think about this: what kind of political war-chest would NORML have if the money you paid for the (hyperinflated) price of that quarter you bought had been sent to them? If all of us did that? The pols would quit laughing and start sweating. The weaker-bladdered of them would have to go buy some adult diapers. They'd realize that we were a force to be reckoned with, not dismissed out of hand. Prior to the Fundamentalists doing the same thing, they were laughingstocks. No pol who likes his cushy job dares laugh now.

We have choices to make, each of us. Are we willing to go the distance by outwardly 'conforming' to society's expectations to achieve what we all hold so dear? Or 'go our own way'...and possibly torpedo any future hopes the rest of us have towards victory?

I always feel like I'm in some weird cheap fake disguise when I tie
my hair back,and put on a suit.

Life is too short for that. No human being will benefit from this. This labeling business have killed millions of human beings. History will prove this one thing. Labeling someone never will ever succeed.

Romans tried to kill all their deaf babies as well as the nazis. We are still here and you know what, ppl still practice this labeling thing today on deafness. In fact, some people do consider deafness to be a diease just like some ole hippy or whatever.

To me, the greatest diease or sin, to label someone something even if one may be the enemy.

In fact, labeling is why Tom and Rolland got killed. One thing I do now understand is that not one of us will ever know what really happened down at the Rainbow Farm. Not Granny or Grandmaa or anyone of us here except for the so-called "Law" who have presented their only version of the story.

I admire those who decided to clean up the look to fight the dirty battles that may lie ahead. I have done this before but I choose to look like a dirty hippy that lives in a dumpster. By my look, I can tell who is my friends and who are the enemy very easily. A friend once said to me that it is better to know who are your real friends and the enemy than to know a fake friend.

Prohibition is just another word for a fake friend who loves to label someone something. And sadly, it cost billions and countless lives. It will not last long. It might not be in our lifetime. It will kill itself one day. To kill it, we need to pour hot coals of kindness and love on its' head. It has to melt away.

As John would say, Imagine where all the people get together and show respect and love for each other.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/621403.asp

Living a long and healthy life is fast becoming a fascination of mine. Maybe because I near the age of being a grandpa! What can I say?

Marijuana?

Well, I don't think its periodic use has shortened my life any more than pollution, natural disasters, plagues or a whole host of other calamities that may or may not befall me. I certainly wouldn't want "getting shot" to be "my" eventual passing. I really don't want to fight with anyone. Don't want a fight with you, my neighbor, or my government. Hell, I even say hi to cops and firemen when walk past one another. Maybe that is one of the darn side effects of "errrr smokin." Being peaceful that is. I just want to live and enjoy it! My personal ingestion habits do you no harm granny. Why is this so hard for those in power to understand? Maybe you can address this from your point of view? Why does not understanding two of my posts, cause you to insinuate that I must be on drugs? Just curious?

When someone writes something outlandish, we are able to pause and think about how it fits within/without our belief system, and respond or not. In the case of "grandmother", it is probably just as well no one writes anything at all. I doubt anyone here is going to change his/her mind.

Then I discovered the internet, and realized all my hippie friends were not dead, after all. I discovered this wonderful forum where we are free to excercise our first amendment right. Boy, have I had an education, since.

After realizing hippies still exist, and joining the battle of Cannabis liberation, I decided to let my hair grow long again. First, I was asked if it wasn't time for a haircut. At this time I was working for a builder, and had work out the ass. The longer my hair got, the less work I was given, so I said to hell with it, and started working for myself. I adverised in the paper, business cards, word of mouth. I got quite a few jobs in the beginning, but as my hair grew longer, and I returned the earring to my ear, work had practically stopped. (This is one of those rural communities where change and indiviuallity have all but frozen in time.)

So, this is what I have been doing, lately. I have been working for nothing. I go to senior citizens and ask them what work they need done. They say they can't pay contractor wages, so I tell them if they buy the materials, I will do the work for a song. When I complete the job, I always ask if their paying me will affect buying their medication. I have a conversation with them about pharmacuetical companies, and how greedy they are. They jump on this. By the time I finish talking with them about our government and the War-on-Some drugs, they are hugging me and thanking me for my work and asking me to please come back, to just talk.

I'm starting to get more work than I can handle. I have been threatened by other contractors about taking their work from them. I tell them stop charging so much for your work, do your jobs the right way, and you can be as busy as me. I recieve a very big frown.

I've money in the bank, so I'm not losing anything by doing this.

Point being, even though we look "freaky", it is our actions toward our fellow humans that make us who we are.

Try this. Find the biggest, grumpiest old redneck you can find, then ask them if you can do something for them which usually costs money to have done. Their eyes change from contempt, to disbelief. You will have made a friend, and at the same time, dispelled the lies about hippies.

ACTIONS, NOT REACTIONS.

I'm so proud of my ponytail.

I think we reveal our lack of depth and comprehension when we resort to personal attacks based on ignorance and wild correlation (case in point, legalizing marijuana = drivers on PCP - no worse than "due to your lack of self-awareness, you seem to write people off for the way they look!" ).

I think you also agree with me that all this discussion about Rainbow Farm is for naught if nothing comes of it. In my opinion, discussing granny's (or is it grandmothers - I lose track) opinions are just as much a waste of cycles.

I can honestly tell you that I really don't care whether anybody on this board agrees with my philosophy, or whether anybody thinks I'm a "beautiful person". To me, the Utopia of peace, love and brotherhood may or may not come to pass, and I'm not holding my breath waiting.

But one thing I do care about. And that is my right to pursue whatever form of happiness I choose without fear of persecution or criminal prosecution - as long as I don't hurt anybody else. Thats it!

And that right extends to granny and grandmother and grandpa all the judges in robes or dreadlocks...

But the road to getting there, as you have correctly observed, is not going to be travelled by people looking like they just came from Yasger's Farm.

Is that so hard for people to understand?

************

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, called by
his peers the "Dean Of His Profession," was asked in 1953 to give a toast
before the New York Press club. He responded with the following statement:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history in America,
as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you
who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know
beforehand that it would never appear in print.

"I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am
connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things,
and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be
out on the streets looking for another job.

"If I allowed my honest opinion to appear in one issue of my paper, before
twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the Journalist is to destroy the truth; to Lie Outright;
to Pervert; to Vilify; to Fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to Sell His
Country and His Race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and
what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and
vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks, they pull
the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are
all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

*******************************************************

No, we are rationally concerned.

Aah, but why, then, are you not arguing that alcohol should be re-criminalized? Do you believe it should? If you would take a look at what happened during Alcohol Prohibition, you would see a mirror image of Drug Prohibition on a microcosmic scale: violence, organized crime, corruption of law enforcement ("peace officers"), deaths from "bathtub-gin" (since it wasn't regulated), etc. All of these were/are a direct result of Prohibition, not the mere existence of "drugs".

We "legalizers" are also rationally concerned about drunken school bus drivers...the key was irrationally. It is irrational to think that if something is legal (like alcohol or pot) that people will immediately go out and do it, let alone while in custody of our children.

If PCP were suddenly legalized, would you go out and buy some? Neither would I nor anyone I have ever met. I don't know why this is a difficult concept to grasp. "Drugs" are more available to children because they are illegal. A "man on the corner" doesn't ask for I.D.

MDG: Of course, driving drunk isn't a crime, is it? After all, alcohol is legal, so DUI surely must not be a crime, right? Sheesh.

grandmother: No. The argument is that drug use would sky rocket the same way alcohol use sky rocketed after its prohibition ended. In an ideal setting, ppl. wouldn't be all that wrapped up in trivial matters, like the need to get intoxicated, but if you're a govt. faced with prohibition on one hand and sky rocketing abuse on the other then you will opt for prohibition.

*See above mention of Alcohol Prohibition. Your assertion that the only options are "sky-rocketing abuse" or "prohibition" is absolutely false.

grandmother: There is the issue of changing things so that so many don't want to get intoxicated but that is a perspective that doesn't concern pot heads so I won't go into it (meanwhile, pot heads think they are where it's at. I hate feeling embarrassed *for* someone).

Don't do anything you hate. I hate pickled relish, and refuse to eat it. I hate hard liquor and won't drink it. I hate taking away others' personal freedoms as well. If you want to "change things so that...", you should do that on your own, not by throwing people in jail (or forced "rehab") for things which don't directly affect you.

MDG: Also of interest is the "in an ideal society, it wouldn't matter" part because we can assume this means there wouldn't be anyone ahn druuugs. Grandmother, be sure to get rid of your liver pills and your Centrum Silvers. Dump those expensive Celebrex in the toilet, because we don't want you to be ahn druuugs. Arthritic joint pain now?

grandmother: Your confusing medication with people who are ahn druugs.

No confusion here, ma'am. Recall a recent proposition in California (and several other states) where voters approved the use of Marijuana for medicinal purposes? Sick and dying people are still being persecuted and prosecuted for possessing a plant. A PLANT!!!

Now, had those Celebrex I mentioned been covered in the Controlled Substance Act, and were the only effective remedy for controlling pain in those aged joints, would you accuse me of confusing Celebrex with medicine?! Old grannies would be arrested, in the same way AIDS patients are.

MDG: Sorry, this is an ideal society we're talking about, here. Don't drink that coffee in the morning, because caffeine is a druuug.

grandmother: Caffeine isn't debilitating.

Oh, so now, you have decided the qualifier for which drugs are legal and which drugs are not. Care to approve the re-criminalization of alcohol? Oh, I've certainly never seen a person debilitated by alcohol! Oh my, no!

MDG: (I don't believe you're a grandmother, but you see my point). Oh wait, you don't want people taking the drugs you don't like.

grandmother: That would be the ones that are bad for them and the people around them.

This is your third opportunity to approve and stand by the affirmation of re-criminalization of alcohol. Come on, third time's the charm. Alcohol has been shown to be far worse than cannabis on it's consumer, and judging by how many times I've seen drunken brawling, I can certainly attest to it's danger those around them. I've never seen a "pot-head" raise a fist.

Feel free to jump in and outlaw tobacco, too.

MDG: Prohibitionists never seem to recognize the hypocrisy in their statements. Of course, if they occassionally do, they'll say something like, "We have enough legal substances, we don't need another" as though by making something illegal makes it disappear!

grandmother: There's plenty of assinine statements to be found on all sides of the debate, aren't there. That's a tactic Rush Limbaugh uses.

Rush Limbaugh is assinine in his own, special, and incredibly grand way.

MDG: Prohibition makes everything worse!

grandmother: Like the prohib. of murder, theft, extortion, slavery, assualt...

Fantastic. You've got me on this one. I can't argue with the fact that murder is evil, theft is evil, extortion, slavery, assault are all evil. They are! I agree (no sarcasm).

However, please notice that each of those crimes deprives another person of his rights or property! If a person is drinking a beer or smoking a joint peacefully in his own apartment, no one is being deprived of anything! There is NO victim!

MDG: Open your eyes!

grandmother: You have no idea.

(did you happen to catch the local news broadcast where Rohms step dad said while looking at his shoes, "Rollin was slow, easily led..."?)

He said this in response to the police misleading his son.

Reply: I dunno 'bout that. Doesn't make sense. The land would have still been forfeited (if the court decided against them and the evidence wasn't exactly in their favour).

Yes, the land would be forfeited, but they didn't want to leave behind their hard work of the last 5-8 years. Is that unreasonable, especially when you don't believe in the law which makes you forfeit the property?

Doesn't "snooped into his business" sound kind of sinister?

Sounds like a Fourth Amendment right, to me.

Reply: If you look up all the news about it on the internet you find inconsistencies.

All the news on the internet has been reprints of articles published in newspapers. So the newspapers are inconsistent.

sometimes it's because the editor thought their advertisers wouldn't like this or that bit of information getting out

Are you kidding? Do you think that happens all over the world at every editorial desk? So, it's OK that those trusted with disseminating information may only give some small pieces that they think that their public would like?

sometimes it's part of the vast conspiracy against pot heads all of the members of which are in contact with each other telepathically in order to be so well orchestrated...

And a hearty "f*** you" to you too.

Reply: If I took women and their daughters to be my wives I'd be strung up six ways from Mars. But if I'm good looking, charismatic, hyper religious and owned enough guns to support an army and a compound in Texas why then I'd certainly have my ardent supporters. It's a crazy ole world, that's for sure.

What the hell does this mean? My point was the "plausibility" of these assertions. Not anything to do with Waco, per se. Koresh was a crazy fu**er with a screw loose. I'm not equating Crosslin with him, or vice versa. Don't take logical leaps just because you don't have a credible return.

I can believe that they weren't going to risk getting shot on the strength that maybe that one and only bullet did the trick. If someone pointed a gun at me I might not stop after the first pull of the trigger because of what ppl. might think of me afterwards.

But these are POLICE. Not Judge and Jury. Their FIRST duty is to serve and protect, NOT to protect themselves at all costs. Their job is to subdue and to let other governmental agencies decide on the future of the suspect. Remember the Rodney King beating? The man was nearly killed by the hate filled cops. Was he *really* that hard to put down and handcuff? Or were the cops acting on their god-given right to take out their emotions and bigotries on suspects?

Reply: Well, we don't have FBI training, so I don't know if it's a judgement call kind of thing or not... I expect, though, that after you shoot someone in the shins that it leaves them able to shoot back, so either way, you can't take the chance, can you?

See above. Again, it is the duty of the police to apprehend, not to protect themselves. If a cop trips and breaks his leg in pursuit of a suspect, should he then kill the suspect because he got hurt?

I'm not saying cops shouldn't protect themselves, but there were 120 of them in full body-armor. Again, there was no threat by these men. Someone clarified earlier that their rifle had stopping power. Well, the cops had plenty of armaments too.

Reply: haven't we already seen with the media that when a story trickles out a little at at time misinformation is the result?

So, what's your assertion here? That it's OK?

Reply: I wonder what the deal was with attacking that woman with a pipe.

One incident in a 49 year lifetime. Yeah, that makes him the devil. I'm not excusing his actions. I would NEVER hit a woman with anything. But not everyone lives by that credo, and I assume the attackee and the justice system dealt with him for that incident.

Also, many of us are automatically suspect of people who stock pile guns.

You should ask most NRA members whether or not people who stockpile guns are suspect. See? It's not just your POV that the world must live by.

By the way, who said they stockpiled guns? I thought there was only reason to believe a few guns were on the compound.

Reply: I think the laws are injust in that someone with a drug problem doesn't warrant being in jail with "hardened prostutniks";

Whatever that is.

but legalization isn't a good idea (although in an ideal society, it wouldn't matter...). May as well legalize everything. Then you could drive a bus while on PCP.

In fact, I think everything should be legalized. And, in fact, you are ignorant when you equate legalization with stoned airline pilots and hophead bus drivers. That's simply childish.

When marijuana becomes legal (once again) how will history judge this incident?

Reply: I doubt history will even know about it... but if the did, they'd probably see it as a couple of yokels who got out of control; not as a profound socio/revolutionary/political scene thingy...

History wont know about it? You underestimate the internet and the fact of modern record keeping. A couple of yokels who got out of control? Was Harriet Tubman a yokel for helping her brothers and sisters get away from slavery? By the way, branding people you don't like as "yokels" says much more about you than it does about them.

As a justifiable consequence of enforcing the laws? Or as a pointless exercise of government domination at the expense of human and American rights?

Grover Crosslin was George Washington, and our British government just executed him.

Reply: Now that's just silly. People will think you aren't sober.

Firstly, when you try to peg someone's viewpoint as being made under the influence, your obvious bias takes you right away from credibility.

Secondly, you seem to think that alcohol and marijuana and heroin leave you debilitated. That simply reinforces the notion of your ignorance about the subject which you speak. Some people function day in and day out under the influence of these substances...I'm talking doctors, lawyers, presidents...

I certainly appreciate that you have an opposing view, but I don't call you stoned because of your dumb views.

Tom Crosslin may be no George Washington, but he may very well be a Patrick Henry.

If I gave the impression that I am prejudiced against people who sport the 60's look, or C&C - then I sincerely apologize.

However, in your haste to judge my views you have unfortunately missed the import of my thesis.

Regardless of your preferred attire or hairstyle, I can assure you that you will not get very far in corporate America today if you go to an interview with a tie-dye shirt, beads and sandals. Those freewheeling dot coms are dot gone; the only organizations left standing are the old school companies.

Did you watch 60 Minutes last week? Did not you notice how many of Jack Welch's attendees in his seminars looked like C&C? I saw none! And you know why? Because you don't get ahead in today's America looking like that. It makes absolutely no difference whether you like it or not - thats the way it is.

When was the last time you watched a vote on the Senate floor? Did you notice a lot of people with dreadlocks in there? Do you need me to tell you why?

Now, if you are sincere about changing the situation we are in, you will also have to acknowledge that you are going to have to deal with the portals of power such as they are today. And to do that, you are going to have to dress like them, talk like them and cut your hair like them. It makes no difference whether you like it or not!

That being said, let me make one more point clear. As kapt pointed out, I am not by any means attempting to prosletyze my views on to anybody else. I just want to ensure that ALL of us - INCLUDING the 3 piece, button-down wing-tip crowd - get to pursue happiness the way we want. Without becoming criminals.

I have no way of gleaning the vagaries of your personality from your posts - and I submit to you that you have no way of knowing mine either. In fact, you don't even know whether I actually smoke the stuff.

So, my suggestion is, if you want to be taken seriously - not necessarily here, but out there, where it counts - it would be wise to refrain from drawing broad conclusions about people's proclivities without enough information.

I could care less what a person wears or how long their hair is or if they have three eyes in the middle of their forehead. If they act like my above sentence they are beautiful to me.

I cast the 13th vote! 13 is one of my lucky numbers! No granny I am not "errrr smoked" yet but I will keep you posted so you can observe the change in my disposition!

".... you are prejudiced against people based on their 'hippie', gen-x, lifestyles and appearance. "

did I miss something?

Look, cannabists are, by nature, more than willing to live and let live...so long as others are willing to reciprocate. But our celebration of diversity is most emphatically not appreciated by the rest of society. At least, not in the supposed melting pot of the US of A.

For example, this lead-footed ol' rabiblanco (white-*ss) gets off on Bob Marley. Because I not only listen to the music but the words. And what is behind them. But to Joe Sixpack, Marley no doubt looked like something that slept in a dumpster. A stereotypical, raggedy-*ssed, whacked-out looking druggie. And, because of that shallowness, probably never listened to the man at all. Judged an entire people through the filters of his own culture.

As they do us.

If we want to be taken seriously, we must speak the language. Walk the walk in such a way that we get our foot in the door.

I was most fortunate to attend the NORML conference in Washington DC this year. As much as it burns my arse, I wore a suit and tie. Why? Because on the off chance that some media wonk might stick a mike and camera in my face and ask why I was there, I'd be able to give a credible performance of being a normal human being...who also happens to passionately believe in changing the cannabis laws.

And why would they bother to be so attentive? Perhaps because I did not appear to reside in a dumpster?

Sometimes we are our own worst enemies. And that has to stop. Or we'll never get anywhere with the mainstream media...who look for the unusual. And what's more unusual than a bunch of people in business suits speaking articulately and knowledgeably about cannabis, the cannabis laws, and the damage those laws cause to society at large?

S_O was only pointing out that it is society's viewpoints, based upon those snap judgements, that are crippling our efforts. And far too many of us have been providing 'aid and comfort to the enemy' when we show up attired as C&C wannabes (which, by the way, I still laugh 'til it hurts to see Stacey Keach as Sgt. Stedenko).

FoM, have you seen anything relating to this? it wasn't a
hallucination...but the FBI must be watching carefully for
the story to
disappear so quickly...

This is the kind of rhetoric that can very subtly be extended and used by fascist governments. They even make it sound rational sometimes.

There is very good reason not to get drawn into discussion with this point of view because, by its very nature, it is not amenable to change.

We all know how silly and irrational it is to equate legalizing marijuana with drivers on PCP, but arguing the point only lowers us to that level.

Freedom is a very difficult concept to grasp when it extends beyond your own freedoms. But I know from reading this forum, that the "pot-heads" here have demonstrated a very sophisticated understanding of true freedom and responsibility.

In reference to comment 33 you stated "All use is abuse". This is your opinion and you certianly have the right to voice it. However there are other opinions out there too that certianly have the right to be voiced also. I have great respect for your "right" to think that way, but please respect others rights, don't tell them they "have" to share in your opinion or else risk the consequences, and do not have laws passed to force it down peoples throats.

That my dear grandma is what most of the fuss is about.

Some people belive that all people should live the way they think they should. Next thing you know there is a law, then jail, then murder because someone stands up up for their individual rights.

These two modern day Patriots gave thier lives for what they belived in, just like our forfathers did for us, and should be addressed as so. Untill our civil right are givin back to the people, we will unfortunately, no doubt, see more things like this.

Perhaps you could summarize what your actual message is,,,are you
just trying to say that you trust and believe the FBI/Police version
of events,and that shooting Mr. Crosslin between the eyes was a
well justified,and rational thing for the government to do??Mr Crosslin
had never shot anybody before,,,it was not as if he was a threat to
anyone.....

Are you saying that this whole tragedy doesnt disturb you?

Lioness, I understand exactly what you mean. People who understand the value of civil liberties are instantly put in the Cheech & Chong category (I like them too). Let me suggest to you that part of the problem is ours. I mentioned in an earlier post that when I happend to watch the July 4 activities, the anti-WOD parade consisted almost solely of people reminiscent of C&C. We can change that by de-emphasizing pot culture in all of this, and purely emphasizing civil liberties.

Concerning how you go about expressing yourself without attracting undue attention, I believe Lehder, dddd, Mr.Greengenes and myself have discussed that somewhat over the past few days - deregister from the Dem and Reb Parties and register with one of the independents. There's nothing radical about that, and you won't lose your job over that - not yet anyway!

Regarding granny and all this others back and forth jockeying; more heat than light, is all I have to say. Serves no useful purpose and gets us no closer to our goal.

Merriam Webster-Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatiode propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623.
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Now,I was referring to the second "hurtful" meaning of propaganda when referring to this article in my first post. The first post on this thread by the way.

Imagin That!

Yyyyyessssssss.

Q.How do the police know that the police aircraft was shot at and missed ?
A.__________________________________

I belive there is a little spin on thier stories.

No, we are rationally concerned.

Of course, driving drunk isn't a crime, is it? After all, alcohol is legal, so DUI surely must not be a crime, right? Sheesh.

No. The argument is that drug use would sky rocket the same way alcohol use sky rocketed after its prohibition ended. In an ideal setting, ppl. wouldn't be all that wrapped up in trivial matters, like the need to get intoxicated, but if you're a govt. faced with prohibition on one hand and sky rocketing abuse on the other then you will opt for prohibition. There is the issue of changing things so that so many don't want to get intoxicated but that is a perspective that doesn't concern pot heads so I won't go into it (meanwhile, pot heads think they are where it's at. I hate feeling embarrassed *for* someone).

Also of interest is the "in an ideal society, it wouldn't matter" part because we can assume this means there wouldn't be anyone ahn druuugs. Grandmother, be sure to get rid of your liver pills and your Centrum Silvers. Dump those expensive Celebrex in the toilet, because we don't want you to be ahn druuugs. Arthritic joint pain now?

Your confusing medication with people who are ahn druugs.

Sorry, this is an ideal society we're talking about, here. Don't drink that coffee in the morning, because caffeine is a druuug.

Caffeine isn't debilitating.

(I don't believe you're a grandmother, but you see my point). Oh wait, you don't want people taking the drugs you don't like.

That would be the ones that are bad for them and the people around them.

Prohibitionists never seem to recognize the hypocrisy in their statements. Of course, if they occassionally do, they'll say something like, "We have enough legal substances, we don't need another" as though by making something illegal makes it disappear!

There's plenty of assinine statements to be found on all sides of the debate, aren't there. That's a tactic Rush Limbaugh uses.

Prohibition makes everything worse!

Like the prohib. of murder, theft, extortion, slavery, assualt...

Open your eyes!

A.__________________________________

This is now public domain but anyone who puts music to this must release it via internet as a FREE downloadable mp3.

Classic prohibitionist argument: All use is abuse and will undoubtedly be committed by school bus drivers. Of course, they never mention that alcohol is legal and we're not irrationally concerned about bus drivers being drunk merely because alcohol is legal. Of course, driving drunk isn't a crime, is it? After all, alcohol is legal, so DUI surely must not be a crime, right? Sheesh.

Also of interest is the "in an ideal society, it wouldn't matter" part because we can assume this means there wouldn't be anyone ahn druuugs. Grandmother, be sure to get rid of your liver pills and your Centrum Silvers. Dump those expensive Celebrex in the toilet, because we don't want you to be ahn druuugs. Arthritic joint pain now? Sorry, this is an ideal society we're talking about, here. Don't drink that coffee in the morning, because caffeine is a druuug. (I don't believe you're a grandmother, but you see my point). Oh wait, you don't want people taking the drugs you don't like.

Prohibitionists never seem to recognize the hypocrisy in their statements. Of course, if they occassionally do, they'll say something like, "We have enough legal substances, we don't need another" as though by making something illegal makes it disappear!

Why is it, everytime legalization is brought up, someone always equates it with driving school buses on PCP, or legalizing child abuse, or murder or some other silliness. If drugs were legal, I doubt that anyone would even want to do PCP, since there would be safer alternatives available.
Do we have a major problem with people driving school buses while drunk? There may be the occassional case, but I haven't heard of any epidemics of this nature. Try as we might, we will never have a risk free society, and making drugs illegal causes more general risk to society then it prevents. Overdoes from unsure purities of drugs, drive-by shootings with innocents in the crossfire, high speed police chases endangering the public, corrupt politicians and police, increased spread of disease through dirty needles and prison rape, children snitching on their parents to DARE officers, more children with one or both parents in prison, property stolen by the government through civil forfeiture...ect..and so forth.

A. Again, how can we ever know? He "immediately brought the gun up and pointed it at the agent," according to the FBI, and refused
orders to put the gun down. Two other agents then shot at him. He was killed.

A2. Mr. Crosslin had 5 gunshot wounds to the head. This was an execution.

I can believe that they weren't going to risk getting shot on the strength that maybe that one and only bullet did the trick. If someone pointed a gun at me I might not stop after the first pull of the trigger because of what ppl. might think of me afterwards.

Q. Couldn't they have just shot him in the legs to down him rather than quite obviously shooting to kill?

A. Yes. But if there was fear that he was about to shoot the other agent, they would not want to wait until their fellow agent was killed
before taking action. Just wounding Crosslin would have left him still able to fire many shots with his semiautomatic weapon.

Colwell just said "and refused orders to put the gun down." Just exactly how long do you have to have a gun pointed at you before you shoot? If
there were seconds worth of delay, then there was more than enough time to aim at something besides the head.

Reply: Well, we don't have FBI training, so I don't know if it's a judgement call kind of thing or not... I expect, though, that after you shoot someone in the shins that it leaves them able to shoot back, so either way, you can't take the chance, can you?

Q. So, are you saying killing Crosslin was justified?

A. I don't know. If the official account is accurate, and in view of the knowledge the agents had of the attempt to shoot down planes,
there is a strong argument that it was. But there will be further investigation. And we may or may not hear more to back up or bring into
question the justification.

The only inteeligent thing Colwell has said in the whole article.

Reply: Well, no one is disputing that.

Q. Won't there be a lot of wild rumors about the shooting?

A. Of course. Fringe groups with members who hate our government already are at work. You may even hear that Newschopper 16
really was one of the snooping "black helicopters" of the "secret" United Nations forces.

A2. The government could COMPLETELY allay any fears about a cover-up by being completely open and candid, releasing all of their data,
videos, pictures, &c. Think that'll happen?

Reply: haven't we already seen with the media that when a story trickles out a little at at time misinformation is the result?

Q. So, what's the deal? Was Crosslin the evil guy with the "dark side" that authorities portray or the nice guy doing good deeds, as
others claim?

A. Maybe both. He did some things right, some things wrong. It's sad that his Rainbow ended as it did. It is even more sad for Rohm.

A2. There's no maybe about his good deeds. There's every reason for a "maybe" about his "dark side."

Reply: I wonder what the deal was with attacking that woman with a pipe. Also, many of us are automatically suspect of people who stock pile guns. There's something hysterical about it. Like the little boy said in the move "Parents", "real grown ups don't act like that".

Q. Why is that?

A. Because negotiations -- which Rohm agreed to after Crosslin's death -- seemed to have been successful. Rohm was to get to see his son
and then surrender. A peaceful rather than deadly end of the standoff for him.

A2. We've already heard from independent sources that Rohm was promised discussions with his son and then was denied access. Sounds like a
classic case of "bad faith" to me. Especially considering that they'd killed his friend Tom shortly before.

Reply: I saw his step dad on the local news saying the same thing. I wonder about that too...

Q. What happened to the agreement?

A. Again, we will never know whether Rohm intended a peaceful conclusion or always planned to force a confrontation that would mean
his life. He set fire to the farmhouse before the appointed time for surrender and walked out armed with a semiautomatic rifle. State
police said Rohm pointed the weapon at a trooper and was shot when he would not drop the weapon. Death didn't have to be at the end
of the Rainbow.

If anyone was responsible for the deaths of Grover Crosslin and Rolland Rohm, it was our "vaunted" government. They tried to arrest them, take
away their land, and they did take away Rohm's son, all while these unjust laws against marijuana are the excuses for the goverment's inhumanity.

Reply: I think the laws are injust in that someone with a drug problem doesn't warrant being in jail with "hardened prostutniks"; but legalization isn't a good idea (although in an ideal society, it wouldn't matter...). May as well legalize everything. Then you could drive a bus while on PCP.

When marijuana becomes legal (once again) how will history judge this incident?

Reply: I doubt history will even know about it... but if the did, they'd probably see it as a couple of yokels who got out of control; not as a profound socio/revolutionary/political scene thingy...

As a justifiable consequence of enforcing the laws? Or as a
pointless exercise of government domination at the expense of human and American rights?

Grover Crosslin was George Washington, and our British government just executed him.

Reply: Now that's just silly. People will think you aren't sober.

Q. Why did it have to end that way?

A. Well, of course, it didn't have to end in death. Crosslin and Rohm could have walked out at any time during the standoff and
surrendered peacefully.

A2. It didn't have to end in death. Certainly there was a way that the police and FBI could have taken them without executing them. They could
have waited longer, or been more understanding of their concerns.

Reply: They were their to make an arrest. They waited for days. They tried to negotiate. Crosslin wouldn't hear of it (did you happen to catch the local news broadcast where Rohms step dad said while looking at his shoes, "Rollin was slow, easily led..."?). I think I would have been concerned about all the guns I was facing (whether they intended to use them or not... I don't really know that, do I). Also, if you point a gun at me, well...

Q. So, they wanted a standoff?

A. Apparently. They drew the attention of authorities by setting fire to buildings at the farm and then chose not to respond, except by
shooting at planes.

A2. Apparently means never having to say "I have no idea." They set fire to the buildings because they didn't want the government to take their
hard earned business and lands because they smoked pot.

Reply: I dunno 'bout that. Doesn't make sense. The land would have still been forfeited (if the court decided against them and the evidence wasn't exactly in their favour). Personally I suspect that Crosslin was trying to create a waco type scene in order to attract cameras. This situation just isn't on the level of news worthy but I think Crosslin was making some desperate attempt to some how make it such.

Q. Did they set the fires in order to ambush firefighters and police who would be expected to arrive?

A. That's one of the questions perhaps never to be answered. Crosslin and Rohm cannot tell us their motives. Maybe they left letters and
informed others. Maybe not.

A2. That is an example of a "loaded" question. A better question would be:

Q: Did the state police and FBI ever have any intention of letting Crosslin and Rohm live?

A. We don't know, and the government will never tell us.

Reply: Don't you think they'd (FBI) would be doing themselves a favour by bringing someone in alive rather than creating a situation for themselves. BTW, it's been the FBI who have blown the cover on all those corrupt cops you've been hearing about lately. One thing to keep in mind when you hear about incidences like the one in Miami; they're not getting away with it.

Q. Even if there would have been no additional charges for burning some structures on his own farm, didn't Crosslin -- and Rohm, too --
already face charges?

A. Yes. Serious ones for Crosslin, a convicted felon facing three charges. But for Rohm there was nothing likely to lead to a lengthy prison
term. In fact two of three charges against him had recently been dropped.

A2. A1 is a bald-faced lie. The charges were for posession of a firearm (a mandated requirement for certain Utahns,) witnessed drug use, and
"manufacture" of a plant.

Reply: I count three.

The standoff became deadly serious when one or more of the Rainbow protesters shot at and hit a WNDU-TV news helicopter. Shooting
to hit a fragile, civilian helicopter really amounts to attempted murder. A bullet could hit an occupant or cause the craft to crash. This
also brought in the FBI.

Maybe the media are more to blame than Crosslin. It was Crosslin who felt threatened by the outside world, and it was a helicopter (that could
have been police) that snooped into his business for the story.

Reply: Crosslin being temp. insane would have been little comfort to the families of those on the helicopter if it had crashed. It's just not an excuse. Doesn't "snooped into his business" sound kind of sinister? Witnesses saw guns being carried onto the site. Police and FBI were in a stand off. I've got news for you; there will be police and news air craft. What do you expect?

Q. Why the FBI?

A. Because shooting at planes is a federal crime. Two other planes also were shot at during the standoff.

Two other planes? When does the official story cease being revised?

Reply: If you look up all the news about it on the internet you find inconsistencies. Sometimes it's because they didn't get the whole story; sometimes it's because more details came out later, sometimes it's because the editor thought their advertisers wouldn't like this or that bit of information getting out, sometimes it's human error, sometimes it's part of the vast conspiracy against pot heads all of the members of which are in contact with each other telepathically in order to be so well orchestrated...

Q. FBI agents shot Crosslin. And since that agency hasn't exactly been doing everything right recently, should we be suspicious that
Crosslin didn't really need to be gunned down?

A. The explanation of the shooting is plausible. Remember, too, that authorities knew they were dealing with at least one person at the
farm who was willing to shoot at planes and accurate enough to hit one. But those who are suspicious of any such action of authorities
will be suspicious no matter how much information is provided.

A2. No information has been provided. Unless someone really pushes, no information will ever be provided. And yes, the explanation is plausible.
"The FBI threw the firebombs into the Waco compound" is just as plausible.

Reply: If I took women and their daughters to be my wives I'd be strung up six ways from Mars. But if I'm good looking, charismatic, hyper religious and owned enough guns to support an army and a compound in Texas why then I'd certainly have my ardent supporters. It's a crazy ole world, that's for sure.

You all are awesome.

For example, if one was to refuse to pay his unConstitutional taxes, he'll probably "get away with it" for the first year. Then, when he doesn't get locked up, he'll think he's "won", and repeat the next year. After a couple more years, while he has disobeyed no Constitutional law (nor has the cannabis consumer ahn druuugs) he gets a knock on the door with an arrest warrant, and is carted off to jail, while his property is being seized.

As it turns out, it wasn't worth the effort for the government to "go after him" during the first couple of years. Yet, they will say, "He had a pattern of breaking the law" when they knew front the start what was going on, and in fact wanted it. Consequently, they let him build up fees and penalties and interest on unpaid taxes, until ultimately, unbeknownst to him, his life is ruined. Now, the government will again say, "He had a pattern of breaking the law, and we gave him second chances", but we know better.

So, Grandma, isn't it curious how Mr. Crosslin wasn't "locked-up" when seen "smoking pot" long ago? Hmmm...could it be that his property was worth a lot of money to the government?

Was it before or after asset forfeiture proceedings began that he was murdered? We all know the answer, since it wouldn't do the government any good to kill Mr. Crosslin before they were able to take his property, would it?

Questions are all we have,,,most all of the answers are brought to you by the same
guys who accidently misplaced thousands of McVeighs evidence,and files...

Now, you obviously buy the government line of "children in the homes of drug users should be removed for their own safety." I don't see the cops removing children from the households of alcoholics, though their substance abuse is FAR and AWAY more detrimental to the health of a child.

And that same government has no problem with teachers and parents filling their kids full of Ritalin, possibly, without any need of use.

Now there are questions, some perhaps never to be answered.
Q. Why did it have to end that way?

A. Anytime we send 100+ police officers against two men to seize their property, we have to kill them in order to forcibly take it away from them. Especially since they were so peaceful when their child was taken by us a month ago. Remember Elian Gonzalez (sp) and the picture of him taken at gunpoint? We try to only kill when it is cop word against dead man word with no witness. Next question grandma.

Q. So, they wanted a standoff?

A. Actually no. We wanted a standoff. We wanted his child, his land and his freedom. And we took it with bullets. After all they defended themselves with guns and bullets while walking on their property. Correction, I mean our property since we had a court order to take it from them by force if necessary. Resistance is futile.

Q. Did they set the fires in order to ambush firefighters and police who would be expected to arrive?

A. We just don't know. Maybe they knew we were gonna seize their land and didn't want us to have the buildings before we were forced to terminate them. Your question only produces hearsay anyway, next question grandma.

Q. Even if there would have been no additional charges for burning some structures on his own farm, didn't Crosslin -- and Rohm, too -- already face charges?

Yes. They faced charges for growing and using marijuana and using their home as a haven for this activity and having a gun. These are all serious charges that require nothing less than lethal force. We need to send a message to kids that cops have the right to arrest you and will kill you if you resist them no matter how serious or slight the charge may be.

Q. Is it possible they intended only to burn all the buildings so that there would be no structures standing if authorities eventually claimed the farm as ill-gotten gains from illegal drug activities?

A. Once again a question leading to hearsay. Since law officers killed them they can no longer tell us their side. You can visit the following link to read their view point:

http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/rainbowfarm/index2.html

Q. What was that?

Yes, visit the link to understand their viewpoint. We cannot have that kind of view in this society. Of course we decided to get real serious after a helicopter was shot. Can't look bad when the President is visiting our state for Labor Day. This brought in the FBI.

Q. Why the FBI? A. Because shooting at planes is a federal crime. Two other planes also were shot at during the standoff.

A. Why not the FBI. The President is in state for the holiday. We must maintain order and enforce federal drug laws that allow us to lay claim to Rainbow Farm. They (FBI) are experts in law enforcement and highly skilled at terminating the violators of federal law.

Q. FBI agents shot Crosslin. And since that agency hasn't exactly been doing everything right recently, should we be suspicious that Crosslin didn't really need to be gunned down?

A. I will deflect answering your question directly by pointing out the accuracy of shooting a "fragile" aircraft and remind you that officers put no less than 8 bullets in Tom. Four of them head shots. There is no reason to be suspicious of law enforcement action in this situation. We always get our man.

Q. Well, Crosslin was armed with a semiautomatic rifle when he spotted an FBI agent lying in the brush. Did he intend to shoot the agent?

Actually this is one of those legal-eagle-misleading questions. It assumes that "in fact" Tom was toting a gun and raised it an officer. But since I didn't witness it exactly, I can only tell you what happened with precision because I have read the field reports provided by the FBI. They have no reason to lie to you or me. Case closed.

Q. Couldn't they have just shot him in the legs to down him rather than quite obviously shooting to kill? A. Yes. But if there was fear that he was about to shoot the other agent, they would not want to wait until their fellow agent was killed before taking action. Just wounding Crosslin would have left him still able to fire many shots with his semiautomatic weapon.

A. No. We were there to arrest Tom, dead or alive. We only use non-lethal methods on crowds and animals when the media is everywhere. People protecting their liberty and property who also happen to be in violation of marijuana laws do not deserve the same treatment especially when media access has been completely restricted. What news chopper is going to fly into a hot LZ?

Q. So, are you saying killing Crosslin was justified? A. I don't know. If the official account is accurate, and in view of the knowledge the agents had of the attempt to shoot down planes, there is a strong argument that it was. But there will be further investigation. And we may or may not hear more to back up or bring into question the justification.

A. Instead of providing no comment since I did not witness the killing, I will insinuate that it was.

Q. Won't there be a lot of wild rumors about the shooting? A. Of course. Fringe groups with members who hate our government already are at work. You may even hear that Newschopper 16 really was one of the snooping "black helicopters" of the "secret" United Nations forces.

A. Yes. I even heard Elvis and JFK were present. Groups that profess peace and smoke pot actually hate our government and will spread viscous lies about how we exercise control over them with unconstitutional forfeiture laws. These misguided pot smokers want to prevent us from locking up marijuana users and trying to exterminate this plant from the ecosystem. I for one am glad my taxes keep these marijuana smokers behind bars and allow me to pillage their land.

Q. So, what's the deal? Was Crosslin the evil guy with the "dark side" that authorities portray or the nice guy doing good deeds, as others claim? A. Maybe both. He did some things right, some things wrong. It's sad that his Rainbow ended as it did. It is even more sad for Rohm.

A. Well Jack it is sad, just plain old sad that we use lethal force to enforce zero tolerance policies when our very own government provides marijuana for several patients. Tom was no different than most of us. We all have good and bad points.

Q. Why is that? A. Because negotiations -- which Rohm agreed to after Crosslin's death -- seemed to have been successful. Rohm was to get to see his son and then surrender. A peaceful rather than deadly end of the standoff for him.

A. Makes you wonder why he got shot dead.

Q. What happened to the agreement? A. Again, we will never know whether Rohm intended a peaceful conclusion or always planned to force a confrontation that would mean his life. He set fire to the farmhouse before the appointed time for surrender and walked out armed with a semiautomatic rifle. State police said Rohm pointed the weapon at a trooper and was shot when he would not drop the weapon. Death didn't have to be at the end of the Rainbow.

I just love getting my "Death at the End of a Rainbow" comment in the record.

Your article of Sept. 10th, entitled “Questions, Answers on Shootings at Rainbow” was perhaps the most slanted example of spoon-fed propaganda that I’ve read. However, the Q&A format does have its attraction. Perhaps you will print this counterpoint:

Q. Why did it have to end that way?

A. Because over one hundred well armed and highly trained law enforcement agents pointing guns at you, taking your children, your land, your dignity and your freedom will (should) provoke even the most innocent among us to defend ourselves.

Q. So, they wanted a standoff?

A. Probably. They knew that the tattered state of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would permit the “judicial system” to eventually destroy them for their political beliefs.

Q. Did they set the fires in order to ambush firefighters and police who would be expected to arrive?

A. Merely a disingenuous attempt at demonization. More likely, knowing the system was stacked to confiscate their private property, they did what little they could to make that property less valuable to the thieves.

Q. Even if there would have been no additional charges for burning some structures on his own farm, didn't Crosslin -- and Rohm, too -- already face charges?

A. Of course. Although Crosslin, Rohm and Rainbow Farm were dedicated to such ideals as peace, non-violence, organic gardening and recycling, it was their advocacy for changing marijuana laws that made them such tempting targets for Cass County Prosecutor Scott Teter. He sent undercover agents to pro-hemp festivals where they found drug use occurring. It could be argued that this type of activity could be found at any campground or outdoor entertainment venue in the country. Lacking any evidence that Crosslin or Rohm were selling the drugs, Teter managed to have an informant employed by Crosslin. Crosslin paid the informant with cash, which provided the “broken tail-light” kind of infraction that permitted harassment from the Michigan Dept. of Revenue.

Q. Paying an employee in cash is against the law?

A. In the black-is-white logic that underlies the U.S. of DEA, using legal tender is evidence of illegal activity. That, and trusting that your employees are honest and responsible enough to report their own earnings to the IRS. A search conducted when the Taxman arrived to arrest Crosslin revealed a basement marijuana garden.

Q. Growing marijuana is a crime. Wasn’t County Prosecutor Teter correct when he said, “you can't disobey the laws you don't believe in?”

A. Ironically, Teter made this remark in Vandalia, a historic stop on the Underground Railroad. History shows that people of conscience do disobey laws they disagree with. Crosslin believed, as do many, that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to prohibit a medicinal herb.

Q. Even if law enforcement agents were at the farm under dubious legal circumstances, didn’t they have a right to defend themselves?

A. We are left with only the word of the authorities that they were defending themselves. Considering that the average American is videotaped in our banks, our shopping malls, traffic intersections, public events and every time we are pulled-over by a traffic cop, it would seem that several score of FBI agents, State Troopers and County Deputies would have video documentation of the “confrontation” from many angles, including infrared and night vision. Instead we have “authorities said”, “agents allege”, etc.

Q. Are you suggesting a cover-up?

A. I am suggesting that a confrontation between two men armed with .22 rifles and one hundred-plus heavily armed law enforcement agents is hardly a measured response. If the authorities were confidant they acted correctly, they would laud the officers who killed Crosslin and Rohm as heroes, not cloak them in anonymity like crabs scuttling from the light of inquiry.

One thing that appears to be causing a lot of confusion is the weapon our poor victims were supposedly carrying- a Ruger Mini-14 uses a .223 caliber round, but is in no way a .22 target rifle. It is a very large and scary rifle, just short of an assault weapon. I once fired a round from one without ear protection, because I was curious, and my ears rang like I had been at a rock concert for the rest of the day. The bullet is slightly larger than a .22, but the cartridge is about ten times bigger, and it is capable of dropping large game with one shot, so it's a very nervous-making weapon.

The police say that a shot was fired at a police aircraft and missed. I'm not talking about the news helicopter. How do they know that? Did they see this bullet pass by with thier eyes? How do they know it came from the farm?
I can just see how it went:

Pilot to ground control: Just entered suspects airspace.

Ground Control: What do you see?

Pilot to Ground Control: Not much

Ground Control: You have to see something.

Pilot to Ground Control: Just green fields, trees, and burning buildings.

Ground Control: We need more than that.

Pilot to Ground Control: Auh, Oh Yeah! a bullet. looks like a Remington 22 cal. shot from suspects farm. I could tell it came from the suspects weapon. I saw the rifling marks on the side, Just went by the windscreen. Missed by 5-11/32 inches. Isn't that a federal offence.

Ground Contol: Yes it is. What color was the bullet?

Pilot to Ground Contorl: Lead Gray. I'm sure.

Ground Control: Are you sure it was a Remington and not a Winchester?

Pilot to Ground Control: Positive. I saw a small R on the back of as it passed.

Ground control to Troops: There's our green light. Repeat, green light, we have a go. This is not a drill. GREEN LIGHT.

What excellent vision these people have.

I would like to have this claim that they were shot at and missed, looked at real close.

Q. How do the police know that they were shot at and missed?

>"Why are the news media so absolutely sure that the law enforcement officers here are not doing the same thing?"<

>"How can we be sure that they aren't doing this everywhere? "<

So where is the most dangerously influential element here?....We can be sure of NOTHING,,if the press is owned by the corporate empire......When the majority of people,,feed at the trough of todays national media,including network TV,,Cable,,Newspapers,,Magazines......just think about it,,how does one take over a country,,how would one win the "support",of the people,,,how would corporations influence a whole country for their own gains.........Own and control the media........dddd

A. Well, of course, it didn't have to end in death. Crosslin and Rohm could have walked out at any time during the standoff and surrendered peacefully.

A2. It didn't have to end in death. Certainly there was a way that the police and FBI could have taken them without executing them. They could have waited longer, or been more understanding of their concerns.

Q. So, they wanted a standoff?

A. Apparently. They drew the attention of authorities by setting fire to buildings at the farm and then chose not to respond, except by shooting at planes.

A2. Apparently means never having to say "I have no idea." They set fire to the buildings because they didn't want the government to take their hard earned business and lands because they smoked pot.

Q. Did they set the fires in order to ambush firefighters and police who would be expected to arrive?

A. That's one of the questions perhaps never to be answered. Crosslin and Rohm cannot tell us their motives. Maybe they left letters and informed others. Maybe not.

A2. That is an example of a "loaded" question. A better question would be:

Q: Did the state police and FBI ever have any intention of letting Crosslin and Rohm live?

A. We don't know, and the government will never tell us.

Q. Even if there would have been no additional charges for burning some structures on his own farm, didn't Crosslin -- and Rohm, too -- already face charges?

A. Yes. Serious ones for Crosslin, a convicted felon facing three charges. But for Rohm there was nothing likely to lead to a lengthy prison term. In fact two of three charges against him had recently been dropped.

A2. A1 is a bald-faced lie. The charges were for posession of a firearm (a mandated requirement for certain Utahns,) witnessed drug use, and "manufacture" of a plant.

The standoff became deadly serious when one or more of the Rainbow protesters shot at and hit a WNDU-TV news helicopter. Shooting to hit a fragile, civilian helicopter really amounts to attempted murder. A bullet could hit an occupant or cause the craft to crash. This also brought in the FBI.

Maybe the media are more to blame than Crosslin. It was Crosslin who felt threatened by the outside world, and it was a helicopter (that could have been police) that snooped into his business for the story.

Q. Why the FBI?

A. Because shooting at planes is a federal crime. Two other planes also were shot at during the standoff.

Two other planes? When does the official story cease being revised?

Q. FBI agents shot Crosslin. And since that agency hasn't exactly been doing everything right recently, should we be suspicious that Crosslin didn't really need to be gunned down?

A. The explanation of the shooting is plausible. Remember, too, that authorities knew they were dealing with at least one person at the farm who was willing to shoot at planes and accurate enough to hit one. But those who are suspicious of any such action of authorities will be suspicious no matter how much information is provided.

A2. No information has been provided. Unless someone really pushes, no information will ever be provided. And yes, the explanation is plausible. "The FBI threw the firebombs into the Waco compound" is just as plausible.

Q. Well, Crosslin was armed with a semiautomatic rifle when he spotted an FBI agent lying in the brush. Did he intend to shoot the agent?

A. Again, how can we ever know? He "immediately brought the gun up and pointed it at the agent," according to the FBI, and refused orders to put the gun down. Two other agents then shot at him. He was killed.

A2. Mr. Crosslin had 5 gunshot wounds to the head. This was an execution.

Q. Couldn't they have just shot him in the legs to down him rather than quite obviously shooting to kill?

A. Yes. But if there was fear that he was about to shoot the other agent, they would not want to wait until their fellow agent was killed before taking action. Just wounding Crosslin would have left him still able to fire many shots with his semiautomatic weapon.

Colwell just said "and refused orders to put the gun down." Just exactly how long do you have to have a gun pointed at you before you shoot? If there were seconds worth of delay, then there was more than enough time to aim at something besides the head.

Q. So, are you saying killing Crosslin was justified?

A. I don't know. If the official account is accurate, and in view of the knowledge the agents had of the attempt to shoot down planes, there is a strong argument that it was. But there will be further investigation. And we may or may not hear more to back up or bring into question the justification.

The only inteeligent thing Colwell has said in the whole article.

Q. Won't there be a lot of wild rumors about the shooting?

A. Of course. Fringe groups with members who hate our government already are at work. You may even hear that Newschopper 16 really was one of the snooping "black helicopters" of the "secret" United Nations forces.

A2. The government could COMPLETELY allay any fears about a cover-up by being completely open and candid, releasing all of their data, videos, pictures, &c. Think that'll happen?

Q. So, what's the deal? Was Crosslin the evil guy with the "dark side" that authorities portray or the nice guy doing good deeds, as others claim?

A. Maybe both. He did some things right, some things wrong. It's sad that his Rainbow ended as it did. It is even more sad for Rohm.

A2. There's no maybe about his good deeds. There's every reason for a "maybe" about his "dark side."

Q. Why is that?

A. Because negotiations -- which Rohm agreed to after Crosslin's death -- seemed to have been successful. Rohm was to get to see his son and then surrender. A peaceful rather than deadly end of the standoff for him.

A2. We've already heard from independent sources that Rohm was promised discussions with his son and then was denied access. Sounds like a classic case of "bad faith" to me. Especially considering that they'd killed his friend Tom shortly before.

Q. What happened to the agreement?

A. Again, we will never know whether Rohm intended a peaceful conclusion or always planned to force a confrontation that would mean his life. He set fire to the farmhouse before the appointed time for surrender and walked out armed with a semiautomatic rifle. State police said Rohm pointed the weapon at a trooper and was shot when he would not drop the weapon. Death didn't have to be at the end of the Rainbow.

If anyone was responsible for the deaths of Grover Crosslin and Rolland Rohm, it was our "vaunted" government. They tried to arrest them, take away their land, and they did take away Rohm's son, all while these unjust laws against marijuana are the excuses for the goverment's inhumanity.

When marijuana becomes legal (once again) how will history judge this incident? As a justifiable consequence of enforcing the laws? Or as a pointless exercise of government domination at the expense of human and American rights?

Grover Crosslin was George Washington, and our British government just executed him.

AND we had to face the fact that prosecutors would stifle their own internal questions about these shootings and give these cops 100% credibility in public and use them as sworn witnesses against their victims.

What guarantee do we have that the law enforcement officers in this case are not doing the same thing?

We now have similar revelations coming out of Miami.

This happens. Drug suspects are assassinated by police in America, and cover stories are deliberately conspired to by police to portray these assassinations as acts of self defense.

Why are the news media so absolutely sure that the law enforcement officers here are not doing the same thing?

And how do we know how often this happens? And how do we know how easy or hard it is for police to start these kinds of conspiracies amonst themselves?

What is it that keeps American law enforcement honest?

How can we be sure that they aren't doing this everywhere?

I think he knew the US would eventually kill him, and I believe Tom and Rolland died an honorable death. I know this means very little in this day and age, but I still admire it greatly.

Crosslin had his life into that place, setting it on fire seemed to me as his farwell to all he had worked on. I'm sure he will be missed by the local children and friends. I never met them but I wish I had had the chance. Death was never ment to be related to cannibus, but this seems to be the way Americans prefer it. Or is it really???

I am an activist now, but if I got married and had kids, I would have to be wary of my continued illegal activities and the voicing of those opinions.Your family should be your most important concern.

I can hear the wailing, smell the fear now.....for their tyranny rests on such small numbers between them!

I feel Tom and Rolland fought for cowards like me. I feel they died for something I too am guilty of.(consuming) I do not wish to be crucified by anyone out there, I want to share the struggle that is going inside of me. I wonder if others feel the same.....

I have heard that Rainbow Farm is having a gathering on the 15th, does anyone know details about this?