First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply Militia take over federal building in Oregon.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

gvblackmoon wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

Do you know what a slash burn is?


Except you don't get to slash and burn public land as a private citizen that is the job of the government to do so would be arson. That is what you pay your taxes for so they take care of the commons. As for them going back to jail judge found their terms to be short he can do that, not the first time it has happened and won't be the last if you don't like it change how the law works that is how the system is designed.


Its important to note It wasnt a judge just saying "I feel they need more time" its that the original jury sentenced them below the mandatory five year limit for Arson according to federal law. The Appeals court upheld the federal law. VZ68 phrased it in a way that implied double jeopardy rather than appealing to a higher court.
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

Watch the whole video. There some stuff no being say or even being mention in the article. No, I no taking sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAxKCqa3XQ
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:
Watch the whole video. There some stuff no being say or even being mention in the article. No, I no taking sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAxKCqa3XQ


>MundaneMatt
I think ill pass on this video and stick with actual news sources.

Also really this is a ground your gonna remain neutral on. Its pretty black and white dude. No matter what you want its still illegal to break in and overtake a federal building. Like really fucking illegal.
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:
Watch the whole video. There some stuff no being say or even being mention in the article. No, I no taking sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAxKCqa3XQ


>MundaneMatt
I think ill pass on this video and stick with actual news sources.


Then you are being willful ignorance. I don't know what your problem is with him but would no kill you to watch the video.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:
Then you are being willful ignorance. I don't know what your problem is with him but would no kill you to watch the video.


Its not willful ignorance to demand a better source than a Youtube video.
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:
Then you are being willful ignorance. I don't know what your problem is with him but would no kill you to watch the video.


Its not willful ignorance to demand a better source than a Youtube video.


Yes, it is. You refuse to see any knowledge besides what you feel is the right medium that provides you with it. Thou you remain unaware of it content. The only difference between a news site and anybody making news of it. Is that they get pay better and have a better reputation. Something being legal or no. Has no influence over me agreeing or disagreeing with it. Otherwise, when marijuana was illegal I would have agreed with sending people to jail over it.

Anyway, you are basing your opinion on a news article. You are no looking into the history or why this was cause. Have you watch the video you would have learn that the second burning was done in their on own property. I believe if I no wrong that the first time they ask if they could do it and were told they could.

No to mention the two people involved here who are going to jail. Say they are fine going to jail. Among other things.
Again you could bother to learn or remain unaware. Your choice. No offence but the way you talk. Sound like a fanatic than a rational person speaking. A rational person would try to understand the cause from any angle and come to their own conclusion. No just accept things how they are being portrayed.

9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:
Yes, it is. You refuse to see any knowledge besides what you feel is the right medium that provides you with it. Thou you remain unaware of it content. The only difference between a news site and anybody making news of it. Is that they get pay better and have a better reputation. Something being legal or no. Has no influence over me agreeing or disagreeing with it. Otherwise, when marijuana was illegal I would have agreed with sending people to jail over it.

Anyway, you are basing your opinion on a news article. You are no looking into the history or why this was cause. Have you watch the video you would have learn that the second burning was done in their on own property. I believe if I no wrong that the first time they ask if they could do it and were told they could.

No to mention the two people involved here who are going to jail. Say they are fine going to jail. Among other things.
Again you could bother to learn or remain unaware. Your choice. No offence but the way you talk. Sound like a fanatic than a rational person speaking. A rational person would try to understand the cause from any angle and come to their own conclusion. No just accept things how they are being portrayed.




The only difference between a news site and anybody making news of it. Is that they get pay better and have a better reputation.


Nope, just nope. Call me what you want but you need to be way more discerning with your news outlets if this is the view you hold.

Im not just "basing my opinion on one news article" If you read the thread youd realize I read up on this shit.
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
(pro-tip on sources .gov=pretty reliable)

Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:
Yes, it is. You refuse to see any knowledge besides what you feel is the right medium that provides you with it. Thou you remain unaware of it content. The only difference between a news site and anybody making news of it. Is that they get pay better and have a better reputation. Something being legal or no. Has no influence over me agreeing or disagreeing with it. Otherwise, when marijuana was illegal I would have agreed with sending people to jail over it.

Anyway, you are basing your opinion on a news article. You are no looking into the history or why this was cause. Have you watch the video you would have learn that the second burning was done in their on own property. I believe if I no wrong that the first time they ask if they could do it and were told they could.

No to mention the two people involved here who are going to jail. Say they are fine going to jail. Among other things.
Again you could bother to learn or remain unaware. Your choice. No offence but the way you talk. Sound like a fanatic than a rational person speaking. A rational person would try to understand the cause from any angle and come to their own conclusion. No just accept things how they are being portrayed.




The only difference between a news site and anybody making news of it. Is that they get pay better and have a better reputation.


Nope, just nope. Call me what you want but you need to be way more discerning with your news outlets if this is the view you hold.


Then remain in ignorance. Like how you didn't recognize anything else, I say because is inconvenient to your logic.
You know I just realise why your threads are always dead.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Online
Posted 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:


VZ68 wrote:

Do you know what a slash burn is?


Except you don't get to slash and burn public land as a private citizen that is the job of the government to do so would be arson. That is what you pay your taxes for so they take care of the commons. As for them going back to jail judge found their terms to be short he can do that, not the first time it has happened and won't be the last if you don't like it change how the law works that is how the system is designed.


Its important to note It wasnt a judge just saying "I feel they need more time" its that the original jury sentenced them below the mandatory five year limit for Arson according to federal law. The Appeals court upheld the federal law. VZ68 phrased it in a way that implied double jeopardy rather than appealing to a higher court.


I was just pointing out that as a private citizen you don't get to torch public land that is arson you also don't get to seize public property and hold it as a private citizen. Appeals judge tend to do that it is their job to appeal a ruling and in this case he found the jail terms to be lacking and sent them back to jail. Not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last.


Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16


That your source? The US deparment of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:



That your source? The US deparment of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?


A write up on a trail by the US gov is pretty damn reliable source dude for what they were charged with and how the trail went. If they left out or fabricated anything it would be a pretty big fucking deal and people would get all over it.
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:



That your source? The US deparment of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?


A write up on a trail by the US gov is pretty damn reliable source dude for what they were charged with and how the trail went. If they left out or fabricated anything it would be a pretty big fucking deal and people would get all over it.


This country? Dude this country drops bombs on other countries and kill more civilians than bad guys. This country doesn't give a shit unless somebody bother to make a fuss about it. That your source? The US department of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?
I read anyway unlike you who could no be bother to look anywhere else. No once did they mention that the first fire was mean to stop a fire by burning it. Witch firefighter use to stop fires.
No to mention that the first part of the story smells like BS or some comedy show. Really you think hunters will burn an area to hide poaching? And unless I miss read. Nowhere it says that the second burning was in this guys own land. Sorry but if you disqualify my sources because of some fantasy quality crap. I disqualify this on ethical grounds of credibility. Sorry need other sources other than some guys trying to make them self-look good.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:



That your source? The US deparment of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?


A write up on a trail by the US gov is pretty damn reliable source dude for what they were charged with and how the trail went. If they left out or fabricated anything it would be a pretty big fucking deal and people would get all over it.


This country? Dude this country drops bombs on other countries and kill more civilians than bad guys. This country doesn't give a shit unless somebody bother to make a fuss about it. That your source? The US department of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?
I read anyway unlike you who could no be bother to look anywhere else. No once did they mention that the first fire was mean to stop a fire by burning it. Witch firefighter use to stop fires.
No to mention that the first part of the story smells like BS or some comedy show. Really you think hunters will burn an area to hide poaching? And unless I miss read. Nowhere it says that the second burning was in this guys own land. Sorry but if you disqualify my sources because of some fantasy quality crap. I disqualify this on ethical grounds of credibility. Sorry need other sources other than some guys trying to make them self-look good.


Dude the US write up detailed alot of things and was a rundown. I trust that justice was executed fairly given that the Supreme Court even weighed in on there decision. The second fire that you have a hard on for they were found not guilty off.

And before you get on my case this is coming from the Hammonds own appeal to the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th district courts decision
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf

Also "sources" um no "source" 1 uno, Id be happy to see some more.

Edit: reading the Hammond appeal once over it and judging from past statements you made appears the second fire you are referring to is actually the third fire they were charged with the "2006 Krumbo Butte fire" (they were charged with 5 fires and witness tampering). From this source it appears to be that they were charged with (correction: Steve Hammond was the only one charged) because they burned the fire whilst there was a burn ban in affect and the fact that the fire did end up burning an acre of public property.

In the first fire, hunting charges aside they were found guilty according to the appeal on account of

(1) the warning they received
after the 1999 prescribed burn; (2) defendants’
acknowledgment that they intentionally
set fire on private land adjacent to
public land; and (3) the BLM investigator’s
location of ignition points near the boundary
with the public land.


There I did some digging and used a different source that is explicitly pro-Hammond. You happy?

That being said can we agree that whatever they did breaking into a government building is not a good response to it.
Posted 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:



That your source? The US deparment of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?


A write up on a trail by the US gov is pretty damn reliable source dude for what they were charged with and how the trail went. If they left out or fabricated anything it would be a pretty big fucking deal and people would get all over it.


This country? Dude this country drops bombs on other countries and kill more civilians than bad guys. This country doesn't give a shit unless somebody bother to make a fuss about it. That your source? The US department of justice? Could you pick a any less bias inclined to make things look good for them source?
I read anyway unlike you who could no be bother to look anywhere else. No once did they mention that the first fire was mean to stop a fire by burning it. Witch firefighter use to stop fires.
No to mention that the first part of the story smells like BS or some comedy show. Really you think hunters will burn an area to hide poaching? And unless I miss read. Nowhere it says that the second burning was in this guys own land. Sorry but if you disqualify my sources because of some fantasy quality crap. I disqualify this on ethical grounds of credibility. Sorry need other sources other than some guys trying to make them self-look good.


Dude the US right up detailed alot of things and was a rundown. I trust that justice was executed fairly given that the Supreme Court even weighed in on there decision. The second fire that you have a hard on for they were found not guilty off. Though it seems that there were alot more fires than just 2.

And before you get on my case this is coming from the Hammonds own appeal to the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th district courts decision
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf



You know I ask you to give an outside source no the government supreme court personal report. Yes, I did read briefly. Here are the 3 problems with the story. The first story makes a mockery of how people who do illegal poaching would do it. Let lit a fire to attract attention to ourselves. This beyond mental. 2 from what I read. This what happen. Judge A gives them an amount of jail time. Fine and that should have been the end of it. Judge B comes along and fuck Judge A decision. Legal yes but a poor one if you ask me. 3 US court. I will prefer 20 sites who give danm about looking into things. No just being spoon fed. Anyway, fuck this topic. I am done with it. Reason. The whole things pointless. Me proving you wrong or me being right and vice-versa. Because father and son say they are fine doing time. So the people involved don't really have support for me to give a shit about them.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:

You know I ask you to give an outside source no the government supreme court personal report. Yes, I did read briefly. Here are the 3 problems with the story. The first story makes a mockery of how people who do illegal poaching would do it. Let lit a fire to attract attention to ourselves. This beyond mental. 2 from what I read. This what happen. Judge A gives them an amount of jail time. Fine and that should have been the end of it. Judge B comes along and fuck Judge A decision. Legal yes but a poor one if you ask me. 3 US court. I will prefer 20 sites who give danm about looking into things. No just being spoon fed. Anyway, fuck this topic. I am done with it. Reason. The whole things pointless. Me proving you wrong or me being right and vice-versa. Because father and son say they are fine doing time. So the people involved don't really have support for me to give a shit about them.


Outside source? Added Oregon times to the OP if you wanted to check it out. I just chose the .gov because it was more detailed on why the court made there decision.

First the jurys final decision didnt involve the illegal poaching at all it was based on other factors.

Secondly it was a Jury who tried them giving them less than the federal mandatory limit in jail. Cases like that were they go outside the law are going to be appealed simply because they contradict the law. Thats what appeals courts were built for.

Third first hand documents from court cases are generally very very reliable and very very detailed thats kinda what most of the outside news is built on. I spent a while looking for the court documents of the case itself but was unable to find them on the web.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.