Pubdate: Sun, 09 Sep 2001
Source: South Bend Tribune (IN)
Copyright: 2001 South Bend Tribune
Contact:  http://www.southbendtribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/621
Author: Adam Jackson, Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?200 (Rainbow Farm Shooting)

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS ON SHOOTINGS AT RAINBOW

Death was at the end of the Rainbow.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Quite possible. Again, since Crosslin and Rohm cannot talk of their 
intent, we can only speculate. But if the intent was a peaceful ending 
without further charges, something went terribly wrong.

Q. What was that?

A. 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.

Q. Why the FBI?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jack Colwell conducts TV interviews today with Congressman Fred Upton of 
Michigan's 6th District and Chris Chocola, candidate for Congress in 
Indiana's new 2nd District. The live interviews will be on "Politically 
Speaking" at 3 p.m. on WNIT-TV.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth