Bundy group arrested. One dead.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

They said they'd kill law enforcement to stop arrest. That by definition is a threat to murder.

So soldiers are murderers? 

[Darren10]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They threatened to kill law enforcement who did their duty. That constitutes threatening murder. Admittedly I would put their culpability a bit as the occupiers struck me as mental and emotional children oblivious to what the likely consequences of their actions might be. They are still very dangerous.

I'd say that saying you're willing to die for your cause and making a video t your daughter saying that you won't be able to make it home for Christmas definitely constitutes evidence that they were aware of the consequences of their actions.

[Darren10]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I never said they entered when people were there.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they didn't.  Your original statement made it sound like you were trying to portray these guys of taking over some abandoned buildings.  I was simply pointing out that these are building actually being actively used.

Also, I've never called them "domestic terrorists."

As to whether the Bundy Idiot Brigade is comprised of "violent" or "dangerous" people...we'll just have to agree to disagree.

My understanding is that their initial seizure of property was a building that was abandoned. Ergo, they did not go in an 'point their guns" like some crazy nutty "terrorists" would.

 

And, no, I do not recall you calling them 'terrorists', I made that observation in a broader sense of people opposing these occupiers, not specifically you.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

So soldiers are murderers? 

Not generally. But then I remember the My Lai Massacre.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

My understanding is that their initial seizure of property was a building that was abandoned. Ergo, they did not go in an 'point their guns" like some crazy nutty "terrorists" would.

The building wasn't abandoned. It was not in use because of winter. Regardless; to seize Federal Property at the point of a gun is a major Felony. Threatening murder to maintain control of property not theirs is a major Felony.

[Darren10]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not generally. But then I remember the My Lai Massacre.

The Oregon occupiers are equivalent to a massacre? WHAT-ARE-YOU-TALKING-ABOUT???

[Darren10]

46 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The building wasn't abandoned. It was not in use because of winter. Regardless; to seize Federal Property at the point of a gun is a major Felony. Threatening murder to maintain control of property not theirs is a major Felony.

Ah, that may be right about not in in use due to winter. My main point is that no one was using the building they initially seized. There is not need to portray them as "pointing their guns" towards anyone.

 

I agree their actions were a felony and should be arrested.

 

They did not threaten "murder". Unlike murder, being willing to fight and die for a cause is not inherently evil.

 

Question: Were the Union soldiers or Southern soldiers murderers?

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

The Oregon occupiers are equivalent to a massacre? WHAT-ARE-YOU-TALKING-ABOUT???

I have no idea as to where you are going with this. They are not peaceful occupiers/demonstrators, They are not soldiers in the US military. They are armed Domestic Terrorists Thugs bent on armed revolution against the US.  Say you have a summer home, and during winter armed thugs take it over. Saying they'd kill anyone who tried to stop them from using your property as they wished. Then started destroying it. What would be your reaction?

[Calm]

Darren, do you consider these men soldiers?  Or perhaps freedom fighters? And they are in a war with the US government?

If not, how would you describe them and their intention to use guns in their efforts to persuade change to occur?

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Darren, do you consider these men soldiers?  Or perhaps freedom fighters? And they are in a war with the US government?

If not, how would you describe them and their intention to use guns in their efforts to persuade change to occur?

By their own words.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/berserk-militant-promises-bloodbath-as-feds-move-in-this-is-a-free-for-all-armageddon/

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

This is going to be shorter answers....i tried responding twice before and my responses mysteriously disappeared.

I would when if it was just that straight forward, I held similar assumptions to what you mentioned, and there wasn't so much irony involved in what you just wrote. The Federal government is taking land from white people who's ancestors took it from Natives....and not only took it but in the process committed acts of genocide, forced mass migrations, and actively destroyed their culture all in the name of manifest destiny and for their peoples to have land to graze on. So I would when there was more at stake, their grazing wasn't environmental hazards, and their practices and freedom weren't in direct conflict with others. For more, see and article here http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464490320/dispute-over-cattle-grazing-blocks-patrols-of-federal-land. I especially enjoyed the caption of "get in line" by the former chairman of the paiutes.

 

Yeah....like what filter do you use to read the news. I feel like I witnessed something entirely different and I was watching the concerns in ferguson very very carefully. To me you're also comparing apples and oranges. In one you have a very limited movement with mild support at best carrying guns over some federal parklands and threatening violence/death if people try to come in to reestablish order. Small, careful movements to minimize what they are promising will be violence is expected. On the other you have a very agitated situation based on legitimate concerns of racial discrimination by police, lack of due process, and little police accountability over deaths on the job. Going in and shooting would have further inflamed and led to national revolts. 

 

and It justifies shooting for Oregon, not because they are willing to die for the cause but because they are willing to kill to enforce it. 

 

Not sure your confusion on the first point.

I'm not going to continue to compare this to feguson. I tried to generalize past ferguson in that statement on purpose. Not only do I not see this as a direct parallel, but the amount of restraint and regard to life by the police in this situation is painful to compare to the many many many instances that the police were not as restrained or cautious in use of force for minority populations. The underlying concerns surrounding ferguson actually has an impact in my family's life and the communities I have connections to. I can't easily divorce my emotions from it. 

To the other 2 questions. They are dangerous because they are willing to enforce their stance by premeditated deadly violence. Riots are usually not planned. So to me they go a little further in their actions.

 

With luv,

BD

 

"The Federal government is taking land from white people who's ancestors took it from Natives....and not only took it but in the process committed acts of genocide, forced mass migrations, and actively destroyed their culture all in the name of manifest destiny and for their peoples to have land to graze on. So I would when there was more at stake, their grazing wasn't environmental hazards, and their practices and freedom weren't in direct conflict with others. For more, see and article here http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464490320/dispute-over-cattle-grazing-blocks-patrols-of-federal-land. I especially enjoyed the caption of "get in line" by the former chairman of the paiutes. "

Talk about irony. By your reasoning the fact that Ammon Bundy is Mormon and leaders of the group cite Mormon leader's words as inspiration and justification for their occupation, you should have lots of sympathy for them. After all, the federal government sent troops to destroy the Mormons and their non existent uprising. Local governments allowed for the killing of Mormons and took their lands. Yet you explicitly stated that your Mormonism does not allow for justifying what Ammon Bundy is doing.

And just because it happened in the past you think it's OK for oppression to happen in the present? Do you practice or believe in some kind of liberation theology I am not aware of? Where does that end? How about the Indians who took land from Indians for, you know, centuries? Do we have to wait until only the original natives get their land back and then somehow we can seek peace? Furthermore, why are you justifying or sympathize aggression of any sort while condemning aggression by Bundy and his Motley Crew?

I brought up Ferguson because a) their rioting was based on a HUGE lie! I am not at all discrediting oppression of the past. I am however focusing on the reason riots were cited.  b) They were violent, EXTREMELY violent. So, yes, there are apples and oranges since your condemnation is focused on a protest where it is a) based upon documented fact and b) has NOT been violent except when the police (rightfully so) shot LaVoy.

"Small, careful movements to minimize what they are promising will be violence is expected. On the other you have a very agitated situation based on legitimate concerns of racial discrimination by police, lack of due process, and little police accountability over deaths on the job. Going in and shooting would have further inflamed and led to national revolts. "

Again, there have been very legitimate past grievances but America overall has done remarkably well to recompense for those wrongs. The actual riot in Ferguson had nothing to do with a non justified shooting of a "gentle giant" but of a thug name Michael Brown who beat a cop and reached for that officer's weapon.  How in the world you express sympathy for the Ferguson riots and condemnation for LaVoy is way beyond my comprehension. And have you forgotten the several shootings, some ambush style, upon police officers? There *have been shootings* upon law enforcement directly resulting from the "inspiration" from the Ferguson riots.

"and It justifies shooting for Oregon, not because they are willing to die for the cause but because they are willing to kill to enforce it"

 

Michael Brown was willing to kill for his cause, and nearly did. But the Ferguson riots over Brown's death by the officers he beat and came very close to shooting with that officer's own weapon is one to see sympathetically but the Oregon occupiers who have NEVER actually hit anyone need to be stopped immediately? No sympathy for their cause? That's beyond weird.

"Not sure your confusion on the first point." - well, you brought up the Oregon occupiers needing to be stopped *just like* people who blocked women from "entering into abortion clinics". You tell me what you meant by that. I've no idea.

"Riots are usually not planned." - Well, when you go make televised statement like "burn this b*tch down" and "burn this mother f***er down", I'd say that's premeditated. Perhaps not well "planned", but most certainly premeditated.

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by Darren10

[Darren10]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have no idea as to where you are going with this. They are not peaceful occupiers/demonstrators, They are not soldiers in the US military. They are armed Domestic Terrorists Thugs bent on armed revolution against the US.  Say you have a summer home, and during winter armed thugs take it over. Saying they'd kill anyone who tried to stop them from using your property as they wished. Then started destroying it. What would be your reaction?

I asked if soldiers are murderers using your reasoning that these occupiers are murderers. you replied that soldiers are not murderers but there was the My Thai Massacre. So, your reponse in comparable situations where soldiers are murderers is a massacre. How in the world does that come even close to the Oregon occupiers "threatening murder"? Are they going to round up people and kill them. Keep in mind that soldiers go against established law all the time. In fact that's one of the main reasons they exist, to enforce what one group believes to be right upon another. They kill established law enforcement. By your reasoning, they carry out "murder".

My main point is NOT to make these occupiers soldiers or freedom fighters as Calm asked. In fact, I've made it clear that I do not support their armed takeover of the government building and that they should be arrested for it. But, that said, I have lot's of empathy for them. The federal government cannot go unchecked indefinitely and take private property. The situation will get worse if not stopped without armed conflict. I do not inherently reject armed insurrection as a legitimate choice of the people but I most definitely do not think these occupiers are doing the right thing, despite the cowardly efforts of the federal government to prosecute the Hammond family.

[Darren10]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Darren, do you consider these men soldiers?  Or perhaps freedom fighters? And they are in a war with the US government?

If not, how would you describe them and their intention to use guns in their efforts to persuade change to occur?

See my previous post to sometimes saint. Does that answer your questions?

[Darren10]

27 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

By their own words.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/berserk-militant-promises-bloodbath-as-feds-move-in-this-is-a-free-for-all-armageddon/

And was this before or after one of theirs was shot? Initially this was NOT their words.

I also stand by my previous words that killing is not inherently murder.

I also re-ask you my previous question: were the Union soldiers or Southern soldiers murderers?

Edited January 28, 2016 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

Just who on this Discussion Board has condoned, let alone advocated for violence, or the threat of violence? If someone, anyone, has a beef with the government. Then peaceably assemble, and petition it for a redress of grievances. Violent demonstrations, armed conflict, and threatening murder, have no place under our government.

[why me]

6 hours ago, Zakuska said:

In TSSs mind its guilt by association. By the man simply being there he was in the wrong to begin with and worthy of being shot dead.

When the ukrainians were protesting and occupying builidings against the pro russian government the US were supporting such occupations and protests. They were also supporting the occupation of public squares. The US ambassador and the state department's undersecretary of state were passing out cookies and food to the protesters in the occupied public square. Isn't it hypocrisy that the US kills its own occupiers? And the police can pepper spray and tear gas it's own occupy wall street movements? Americans need a reality check. 

 

 

 

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"The Federal government is taking land from white people who's ancestors took it from Natives....and not only took it but in the process committed acts of genocide, forced mass migrations, and actively destroyed their culture all in the name of manifest destiny and for their peoples to have land to graze on. So I would when there was more at stake, their grazing wasn't environmental hazards, and their practices and freedom weren't in direct conflict with others. For more, see and article here http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/27/464490320/dispute-over-cattle-grazing-blocks-patrols-of-federal-land. I especially enjoyed the caption of "get in line" by the former chairman of the paiutes. "

Talk about irony. By your reasoning the fact that Ammon Bundy is Mormon and leaders of the group cite Mormon leader's words as inspiration and justification for their occupation. After all the federal government sent troops to destroy the Mormons and their non existent uprising. Local governments allowed for the killing of Mormons and took their lands. Yet you explicitly stated that your Mormonism does not allow for justifying what Ammon Bundy is doing.

And just because it happened in the past you think it's OK or oppression to happen in the present? Do you practice or believe in some kind of liberation theology I am not aware of? Where does that end? How about the Indians who took land for Indians for, you know, centuries? Do we have to wait until only the original natives get their land back and then somehow we can seek peace? Furthermore, why are you justifying aggression of any sort while condemning aggression by Bundy and his Motley Crew?

Well, I guess it's my turn to say "huh??" I'm not even sure what you mean by the first paragraph. My point if more so that there is more than one side to the story. The Bundy's are using land other people also use (like Native Americans). Their "freedom" comes at the cost of sacred lands for the paiutes, the environment, and basic law and order. That's a heavy cost. It's ironic because you're making an argument for them...and argument that ignores or minimizes the problems in both their assertions and the implementations for what they believe it right. I can't build an iota of empathy because several of the assertions/assumptions you've made fall short and ignore just about every other perspective. It doesn't matter how it's worded their actions and cause still rings stupid and nigh crazy.

 

Quote

 

I brought up Ferguson because a) their rioting was based on a HUGE lie! I am not at all discrediting oppression of the past I am however focusing on the reason riots were cited.  b) They were violent, EXTREMELY violent. So, yes, there are apples and oranges since your condemnation is focused on a protest where it is a) based upon documented fact and b) has NOT been violent except when the police (rightfully so) shot LaVoy.

 

Darren, you are missing the picture if you think ferguson was all about Michael brown....he was a linchpin in a very long and endemic problem that is a national issue effecting entire demographics.

Quote

Again, there have been very legitimate grievances but America overall has done remarkably well to recompense for those wrongs.

Hahahahahaha.....yeah again, I'm not going to go into detail. This just isn't true and we still have some serious loop holes in our justice system that make it very difficult to address grievances. 

Quote

The actual riot in Ferguson had nothing to do with a non justified shooting of a "gentle giant" but of a thug name Michael Brown who beat a cop and reached for that officer's weapon.  How in the world you express sympathy for the Ferguson riots and condemnation for LaVoy is way beyond my comprehension. And have you forgotten the several shootings, some ambush style upon police officers? There *have been shooting* upon law enforcement directly resulting from the "inspiration" from the Ferguson riots.

 

Again, I said I have a definite bias. I'm at least aware of it....again, I'm wondering what filter you saw these events in. And again Huh??? Look, I'm not following you on this, and your assessment is just as out there to me as mine probably is to you. 

Quote

Michael Brown was willing to kill for his cause, and nearly did. But the Ferguson riots over Brown's death by the officers he beat and came very close to shooting with that officer's own weapon is one to see sympathetically but the Oregon occupiers who have NEVER actually hit anyone need to be stopped immediately? No sympathy for their cause? That's beyond weird.

Okay now you're definitely grasping at straws here....Michael Brown wasn't willing to kill for his cause....he didn't have a cause. He got into an unplanned, really stupid, physical altercation with a cop....details that no one was getting right at the time. You're playing ridiculously fast and loose with the details which no one even today could make a clear picture on motive and/or planned behavior. I don't have sympathy because their cause, without their actions, seem inherently flawed and one-sided to me and based on ultra-conservative beliefs and mythos that I just don't believe. With their actions and threats of armed violence, it seems absolutely insane.  

Quote

"Not sure your confusion on the first point." - well, you brought up the Oregon occupiers needing to be stopped *just like* people who blockd women from "entering into abortion clinics". You tell me what you meant by that. I've no idea.

I was giving examples of people who may have legitimate concerns or beliefs that are going too far in implementation. 

Quote

"Riots are usually not planned." - Well, when you go make televised statement like "burn this b*tch down" and "burn this mother f***er down", I'd say that's premeditated. Perhaps not well "planned", but most certainly premeditated.

No, not considering that the family released both a letter and a public statement calling for peaceful protest. Also not considering that this was in immediate reaction to very painful court decisions. It not premeditated. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/us/michael-brown-stepfather-video/

 

And again, i've told you exactly why I don't have an iota of sympathy, but here's a simple rundown:

- Without their actions, I disagree with their main assumptions and cause and feel that it's more complicated than they're presenting it.

- Their actions are overtly illegal 

- Their actions set up dangerous precedent for anyone with a sense of injustice to try and force their points into the public by acts of violence, whether immediate or later planned. Violence includes, to me, not-so-veiled threats to use their guns against the police.

-  They're often hypocritically decrying government interventions, proclaiming the need for small government, while taking up welfare. 

 

With luv,

Bd

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I've seen no reports of these people "being dangerous". Nothing you described shows me "dangerous people". Protestors in Ferguson were dangerous. Not reacting with force against them has amplified their danger. Law enforcement across the country are now much more reluctant to use force to resolve any situation. You really think such a trickle outcome will come out of this?

 

Getting back to "peaceful" versus "dangerous"/ "domestic terrorism", don't you think if these were "terrorists' they would have killed someone by now? In your own description they are taking the defensive, not offensive in directly confronting law enforcement. No civilian will get hurt by these people, none unless indirectly in confronting the law. No law enforcement will get hurt by these people, none, unless the law directly confronts them and they choose to use deadly force against them. LaVoy chose to place law enforcement in a volatile situation. He did not shoot at them. My thinking is that if he were armed, he would have done so. If he was a "terrorist", why was he travelling unarmed to meet with others in town? This all tells me he is not "dangerous". Burning businesses and churches makes people dangerous, not the actions of LaVoy with the one exception of charging a police officer; but, what did all the others do? They surrendered. These *people* are "dangerous"? Oh, please. You seem to have determined that since these protestors are armed, they are "domestic terrorist" and "dangerous" and thusly you see everything they do as "terroristic" and "dangerous".

 

In my view, your lens of being automatically a terrorist and dangerous just because people are armed is in and of itself dangerous. My guess is that you would not have supported ratification of the Constitution due to the 2nd amendment *or* have severe reservation for ratifying that document for having such a revolutionary code of law (the only one in the world so far as I know).

I spent many hours in the last few days listening to their ranting and rationalizations. These people are unstable. They were scaring the neighbors. They ere scaring local law enforcement. They threatened to kill police and federal law enforcement. If you do not see an armed band stealing federal demands and breathing out threats as dangerous then the problem is you. Seriously, sit down and watch this stuff. Are these really the people you want to defend?

Your defense of these people is they will not hurt law enforcement if they do not confront them......that is asinine. They put law enforcement in a position where it was their job to confront them. This is the equivalent of a drunk dangerous nut in a bar claiming he will not hurt the bouncer if the bouncer does not mess with him and trying to shift the guilt to the bouncer. Or replace the bar with a museum and the bouncer with a security guard. I am not sure why you are defending Lavoy on the principle that he did not shoot first. If they had waited for him to shoot there might have been more bodies. Law enforcement is trained that if you go for your gun or even look like you are going for a gun whether you are positive they have a gun or not......shoot. They want to go home that night and Lavoy took that certainty away. He paid for it with his life. The moral of the story is: Don't be an idiot, associate with idiots in a quasi-military fashion, or launch idiotic armed occupations. Words to live by.

And on the 2nd amendment I am a supporter of it. These are not people who own guns and use them responsibly. They are the kind of people who should not have guns. I find it much scarier that you characterize an armed band occupying federal land and threatening all who oppose them as a valid use of the 2nd amendment. If you do then I do not think you should have guns either.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, why me said:

When the ukrainians were protesting and occupying builidings against the pro russian government the US were supporting such occupations and protests. They were also supporting the occupation of public squares. The US ambassador and the state department's undersecretary of state were passing out cookies and food to the protesters in the occupied public square. Isn't it hypocrisy that the US kills its own occupiers? And the police can pepper spray and tear gas it's own occupy wall street movements? Americans need a reality check. 

 

 

 

Yes, it is hypocrisy. The United States has a long history of blood in its Cold War intelligence and coup operations. That does not make it okay here.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I'd say that saying you're willing to die for your cause and making a video t your daughter saying that you won't be able to make it home for Christmas definitely constitutes evidence that they were aware of the consequences of their actions.

I disagree. They are play soldiers with delusions of heroism. He should have said to his daughter:

"Hi honey, daddy may not be home for Christmas or maybe ever because daddy is an idiot and might die for your freedom to graze on federal land without a permit. When your cows go out and feast on federal land in the days that follow know that your father died for your right to live out the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and participate in government subsidized ranching."

[Calm]

Museum is better analogy since there is a good chance the bar encouraged the guy to get drunk...or at least buy all the drinks that end with that result.

[cinepro]

It also might be good to take a moment and remind ourselves (or learn for the first time) why the Hammonds were sentenced to prison in the first place.  The "occupiers" were protesting this action, and someone is now dead because of their actions.  But does anyone think the Hammonds were innocent, or that the government shouldn't have laws against arson on public lands?

 

Quote

 

Five years ago, a federal grand jury charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with committing arson on public lands, and endangering firefighters.

The charges came after the Hammonds rejected an offer to settle the case by pleading guilty to lesser charges and sentences.

Three years ago, after a two-week trial in Pendleton, Oregon, a jury found 70-year old Dwight and his son, 43-year old Steven Hammond, guilty of committing arson on public lands in 2001. Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006.

They were found not guilty of other arson charges, and while the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated for the dismissal of those charges and a promise from the U.S. Attorney to recommend the minimum sentence mandated by law. The Hammonds assured the trial judge that they knew the law required they serve no less than five years in prison.

The U.S. Attorney also agreed they should remain free until sentencing.

The Hammonds had long ranched private and public lands in Eastern Oregon. Although they leased public lands for grazing, they were not permitted to burn the lands without prior authorization from the BLM. In 1999, a BLM employee reminded Steven Hammond of this after he started a fire that escaped onto public land.

At trial, jurors heard from a hunting guide, a hunter and the hunter's father, who saw the Hammonds illegally, slaughter a herd of deer on public land.

At least seven deer were shot with others limping or running from the scene. Less than two hours later, the hunting guide and the hunter and his father, were forced to abandon their campsite because a fire was burning in the area where the deer had been shot.

The hunting guide's testimony and photographs established fires were burning hours before Steven Hammond called the BLM and said he was going to do a burn of invasive species in the area.

A teenage relative, who was with the Hammonds in 2001 when those fires were set, told the jury that he was handed a box of "Strike Anywhere" matches, and Steven Hammond told him to drop lit matches on the ground so as to "light up the whole country on fire." He did as instructed and the resulting eight to ten foot flames spread quickly. Fearing for his life he was forced to take shelter in a creek.

The jury heard evidence that once back at the ranch, Dwight and Steven told him to "keep his mouth shut," and that "nobody needed to know about the fire." The fires destroyed evidence of the deer slaughter and took 139 acres of public land out of public use for two years.

The evidence at trial convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the Hammonds were guilty of the federal crime of arson; that is, maliciously damaging United States property by fire. The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism. Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong.

The jury also found Steven Hammond guilty of committing a second arson in 2006. That summer, BLM firefighters were battling several significant fires caused by lightning strikes. The Harney County Fire Marshal imposed a burn ban and a "red flag" warning was in effect. Despite the burn ban, and knowing that firefighters were in the area, Steven Hammond set fires at night without notifying anyone. He did so to save his winter feed. After seeing the fires, the firefighters moved to a safer location. When confronted by a firefighter the next day, Steven Hammond admitted setting the fires, and made no apology for doing so.

The crimes that the jury found the Hammonds committed carried five-year congressionally-mandated minimum sentences.

In October 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Michael R. Hogan imposed sentences below what the law required.

The U.S. Attorney's Office appealed the sentences imposed by Judge Hogan because they were not the sentences mandated by Congress for the crimes committed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed the Hammonds' sentences. The cases were sent back to the District Court with the directive that the statute's mandate be followed. The Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision, and in October 2015, Chief Judge Ann Aiken imposed the five-year prison terms. The U.S. Attorney agreed to allow the Hammonds to self-surrender after the holidays.

http://kval.com/news/local/background-us-attorney-issued-press-releases-on-hammond-case-in-october-december

 

 

Notice to all: If the politicizing continues the thread will be locked.

 

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Just who on this Discussion Board has condoned, let alone advocated for violence, or the threat of violence? If someone, anyone, has a beef with the government. Then peaceably assemble, and petition it for a redress of grievances. Violent demonstrations, armed conflict, and threatening murder, have no place under our government.

They have been peaceful.

[Darren10]

Cinepro;

 

I posted this on my January 8 thread on this topic. I've relinked it on this thread to this'll be the this time linking it to readers here.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429214/oregon-rancher-protests-civil-disobedience-justified

The reason these people are protesting is NOT that the Hammonds were sentenced and served jail time but that *after* they did their time the federal government took the case back to court to demand that the Hammonds serve a mandatory 5 years for arson which destroyed some federal property. The federal government got their wish and the Hammonds were resentenced to the 5 years as "domestic terrorists". FDuring the original trial there was a) not enough evidence to show that anyone in the Hammond family illegally poached deer and burned the evidence of their wrong doings. b) it was explicitly stated by the court that it would be "cruel and unusual punishment" (that's unconstitutional to do) that the Hammonds serve 5 years on the domestic terrorist charges. c) The Hammonds were commended by the court as outstanding citizens of their community. The hammonds entered a plea deal to get the trial over with and served their time. NOBODY protested. After the feds got their mandatory 5 year sentencing then the protests began. They see this as yet another example of the federal government over burdening private residents on federal lands so that they'll want to leave and sell their land to the Bureau of Land Management (ergo; the federal government).  

The following video I've linked previously on this thread. This video shows the federal government burning land which burned land of private property homeowners, a private house ended up burning down, dozens of cattle killed and several more notably burned. These home/ranch owners got nothing from the federal government as compensation and most likely never will. You may start at the 3 minute 15 second mark.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zvrrQbjepc

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. They are play soldiers with delusions of heroism. He should have said to his daughter:

"Hi honey, daddy may not be home for Christmas or maybe ever because daddy is an idiot and might die for your freedom to graze on federal land without a permit. When your cows go out and feast on federal land in the days that follow know that your father died for your right to live out the 'Tragedy of the Commons' and participate in government subsidized ranching."

Nope, that father returned home form serving in Iraq. No play soldier The Nehor.