First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply Militia take over federal building in Oregon.
Posted 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


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.


I read them now.

I will remain neutral on it. Need more info before deciding if I agree is wrong or justified. But personally, I feel that would no accomplish anything. Anything I hear from both sides sounds like an excuse or fantasy to me. But no I do no approve of that being the best right course of action.
From what I read, is was an accident. No foul or hill intentions.

Burn cre of public property.

Listing I don't give a fuck. This sounds like a clusterfuck. Juge b is an asshole. Fires got out control. There clearly some kind of shit smell coming from the government here. Both sides are clearly lying about something. But like I say fuck all this. The people who matter are saying this is wrong. So fuck it. But dude don't take what the government says just like that either. Try to see things from the accused side too.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:


I read them now.

I will remain neutral on it. Need more info before deciding if I agree is wrong or justified. But personally, I feel that would no accomplish anything. Anything I hear from both sides sounds like an excuse or fantasy to me. But no I do no approve of that being the best right course of action.
From what I read, is was an accident. No foul or hill intentions.

Burn cre of public property.

Listing I don't give a fuck. This sounds like a clusterfuck. Juge b is an asshole. Fires got out control. There clearly some kind of shit smell coming from the government here. Both sides are clearly lying about something. But like I say fuck all this. The people who matter are saying this is wrong. So fuck it. But dude don't take what the government says just like that either. Try to see things from the accused side too.


Well thats your prerogative. I think that if it made it all the way to the Supreme Court and they still knocked it down justice was carried out and especially given that they endangered people with the 2001 fire they deserve what they got. Either way we have ended up with a situation were people have taken over a government building and are threatening violence if people try and remove them. Thats terrorism plain and simple. No matter what ideology there supporting that is wrong.
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


KarenAraragi wrote:


I read them now.

I will remain neutral on it. Need more info before deciding if I agree is wrong or justified. But personally, I feel that would no accomplish anything. Anything I hear from both sides sounds like an excuse or fantasy to me. But no I do no approve of that being the best right course of action.
From what I read, is was an accident. No foul or hill intentions.

Burn cre of public property.

Listing I don't give a fuck. This sounds like a clusterfuck. Juge b is an asshole. Fires got out control. There clearly some kind of shit smell coming from the government here. Both sides are clearly lying about something. But like I say fuck all this. The people who matter are saying this is wrong. So fuck it. But dude don't take what the government says just like that either. Try to see things from the accused side too.


Well your prerogative. Personally I think that if it made it all the way to the Supreme Court justice was carried out. Either way we have ended up with a situation were people have taken over a government building and are threatening violence if people try and remove them. Thats terrorism plain and simple. No matter what ideology there supporting that in my view is wrong.


I no defending their actions. I care if justifiable to me. Regardless of the means. Even if I find it justifiable. Doesn't mean I approve of their course of action. I will have handled it differently. Depending in the situation.

2001 fire they deserve what they got.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

KarenAraragi wrote:

I no defending their actions. I care if justifiable to me. Regardless of the means. Even if I find it justifiable. Doesn't mean I approve of their course of action. I will have handled it differently.


Yeah but thats besides the point. Im kinda shocked by how many people go straight to the Hammonds when talking about this. The fact that a militia did this scares the shit out of me. Hard right militias are out of control at this point and the fact that they basically organized an act of terrorism freaks me the fuck out.
8792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Places
Offline
Posted 1/3/16
Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Wasp-Zero wrote:

Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.


To the best of my knowledge there was no plea deal. A mandatory sentence like the 5 year one in this case does not allow for plea bargaining.
8792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Places
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


Wasp-Zero wrote:

Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.


To the best of my knowledge there was no plea deal. A mandatory sentence like the 5 year one in this case does not allow for plea bargaining.





Also

I. Background
The Hammonds have long ranched private and public
land in Eastern Oregon. Although they lease public land for
grazing, the Hammonds are not permitted to burn it without
prior authorization from the Bureau of Land Management.
Government employees reminded Steven of this restriction in
1999 after he started a fire that escaped onto public land.
But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on
their property that spread to nearby public land. Although the
Hammonds claimed that the fire was designed to burn off
invasive species on their property, a teenage relative of theirs
testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on
the ground so as to “light up the whole country on fire.” And
the teenager did just that. The resulting flames, which were
eight to ten feet high, spread quickly and forced the teenager
to shelter in a creek. The fire ultimately consumed 139 acres
of public land and took the acreage out of production for two
growing seasons.

In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires
near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven
responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his
land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek
a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.
The government ultimately prosecuted the Hammonds on
charges related to these and other fires. After trial, the jury
deliberated several hours and returned a partial verdict.

So they back burned an acre of public land, and burned an unknown sum 15 and 16 years ago. But they are also charged with ̂instructinĝ a teenager to do it.
Banned
6934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 1/3/16 , edited 1/3/16
I love how the left refers to white protestors as militia. 12 people taking over a federal shack that's closed for the winter does not make it a militia.

Let's see how the feds deal with these people compared to the thousands that were burning and looting the city of Baltimore. If these protestors are killed by the feds, combined with Obama illegally circumventing the 2nd amendment of the constitution with an executive order, well then all bets are off. That will be the next "Shot heard around the world." The government needs be very careful in how this is handled. Don't go kicking a hornet's nest now.
14947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 1/3/16
are people seriously defending this? A mob of armed men takes over a federal building and threatens violence if an effort is made to removed them all because they're upset people are facing penalties for a violation of federal law and we call this a peaceful protest? Are we this divorced from reality. Let's put it plainly, if your group is threatening armed violence against law enforcement officials if you interfere with them you are not part of a peaceful protest
3488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Chapel Hill, N.C
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Wasp-Zero wrote:

Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.



Not all standoffs between crazies and the feds end with violence, like what happened to Waco. The Montana Freeman standoff in the mid 90's ended with the militia surrendering to the feds after a series of negotiations. On another note, Waco entered the news again almost two years ago when it was the site of a violent biker war.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

Wasp-Zero wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


Wasp-Zero wrote:

Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.


To the best of my knowledge there was no plea deal. A mandatory sentence like the 5 year one in this case does not allow for plea bargaining.





Also

I. Background
The Hammonds have long ranched private and public
land in Eastern Oregon. Although they lease public land for
grazing, the Hammonds are not permitted to burn it without
prior authorization from the Bureau of Land Management.
Government employees reminded Steven of this restriction in
1999 after he started a fire that escaped onto public land.
But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on
their property that spread to nearby public land. Although the
Hammonds claimed that the fire was designed to burn off
invasive species on their property, a teenage relative of theirs
testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on
the ground so as to “light up the whole country on fire.” And
the teenager did just that. The resulting flames, which were
eight to ten feet high, spread quickly and forced the teenager
to shelter in a creek. The fire ultimately consumed 139 acres
of public land and took the acreage out of production for two
growing seasons.

In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires
near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven
responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his
land. Although a burn ban was in effect, Steven did not seek
a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.
The government ultimately prosecuted the Hammonds on
charges related to these and other fires. After trial, the jury
deliberated several hours and returned a partial verdict.

So they back burned an acre of public land, and burned an unknown sum 15 and 16 years ago. But they are also charged with ̂instructinĝ a teenager to do it.


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

vanguard1234523 wrote:

are people seriously defending this? A mob of armed men takes over a federal building and threatens violence if an effort is made to removed them all because they're upset people are facing penalties for a violation of federal law and we call this a peaceful protest? Are we this divorced from reality. Let's put it plainly, if your group is threatening armed violence against law enforcement officials if you interfere with them you are not part of a peaceful protest


Tell me about it. These people are indefensible in my book.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

rabbitofcaerbannog wrote:


Wasp-Zero wrote:

Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.



Not all standoffs between crazies and the feds end with violence, like what happened to Waco. The Montana Freeman standoff in the mid 90's ended with the militia surrendering to the feds after a series of negotiations. On another note, Waco entered the news again almost two years ago when it was the site of a violent biker war.


Waco could have ended peacefully. The FBI jumped the gun when the negotiators could have made more leeway.
8792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Places
Offline
Posted 1/3/16
It seems as though the vast majority of militia individuals are not involved with this and some leaders of the militias are even going so far as to condemn the actions. It seems to me like individuals from rather far off places with their own motives and agendas are just using this as a sudo springboard.

Sauce : http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militia_standoff_in_oregon_key.html#incart_story_package
3488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Chapel Hill, N.C
Offline
Posted 1/3/16

megahobbit wrote:


rabbitofcaerbannog wrote:


Wasp-Zero wrote:

Well the militia thing isǹt overly surprising, however it seems to be non violent and hopefully it stays that way. In the regard the ball is really in the hands of the government, and it will possibly be them to determine the outcome. Hopefully they doǹt waco it....

Onto the court case, it seems that the defendants signed a plea deal netting them their first sentence. But they were re sentenced, which isǹt a double trial but it is a rather shitty use of a plea deal as they basically agreed to being guilty to get a reduced sentence. It seems like some seemingly shitty people went up against some rather cunty government people and they then got fucked over. All though I must admit it may be a dangerous precedent, as it opens up the possibility of anyone who takes a plea deal and doesǹt get a clause for no re sentencing can end up serving the full term, which IMHO basically renders a plea deal useless.



Not all standoffs between crazies and the feds end with violence, like what happened to Waco. The Montana Freeman standoff in the mid 90's ended with the militia surrendering to the feds after a series of negotiations. On another note, Waco entered the news again almost two years ago when it was the site of a violent biker war.


Waco could have ended peacefully. The FBI jumped the gun when the negotiators could have made more leeway.



Well, David Koresh was also downright crazy, with his belief he and his followers where experiencing the End Times.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.