First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
The Truth About the Oregon Rancher Standoff
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

"Who said I meant that statement as an argument? Or that were engaged in a debate of any kind?"

There is no formal rule about engaging in an argument, just like there is no formal rule about engaging in a gun fight XD

One side pulling the trigger is the only real step needed! XD

"This is literally the first thing I have said from quoting you. I dont wanna get involved in an argument. "

You can't say that when you initiate the argument. And I'm not mad at you at all by the way. People have this idea that arguing means someone angry.

Now, tell me then. Do you think the ranchers are evil or vile? Do you think the protesters are bad or good? I'm curious to see what you think.


http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-933683/militia-take-over-federal-building-in-oregon
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

Law in question.


The key word being "maliciously ". Based on the evidence from the case, I don't think there was "malicious" intent, when the fire was an accident and the total damage to property was less than $100. I think the law is legal, but it can't be applied in terms of accidental fire.

What do you think?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

Law in question.


The key word being "maliciously ". Based on the evidence from the case, I don't think there was "malicious" intent, when the fire was an accident and the total damage to property was less than $100. I think the law is legal, but it can't be applied in terms of accidental fire.

What do you think?


read my thoughts here
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-933683/militia-take-over-federal-building-in-oregon
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

Law in question.


The key word being "maliciously ". Based on the evidence from the case, I don't think there was "malicious" intent, when the fire was an accident and the total damage to property was less than $100. I think the law is legal, but it can't be applied in terms of accidental fire.

What do you think?


read my thoughts here
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-933683/militia-take-over-federal-building-in-oregon


Ok.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to
damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building,
vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or
possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or
agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not
more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm

Law in question.


The key word being "maliciously ". Based on the evidence from the case, I don't think there was "malicious" intent, when the fire was an accident and the total damage to property was less than $100. I think the law is legal, but it can't be applied in terms of accidental fire.

What do you think?


Malice as a legal term does not mean to imply intent to harm it can also imply reckless disregard for life. Ill continue but I need to know which fire you are referring to. There were 5 fires they were charged with but found guilty of only 2.

That being said I need to know where you got this data given that from the Hammonds own appeal to the US Supreme court the were acquitted from paying damages at the end of the trail.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16
"Malice as a legal term does not mean to imply intent to harm it can also imply reckless disregard for life"

Ok, so starting a fire in the middle of a dessert that increased the value of the land, that was put out not by state firefighters but by the family themselves, would be considered reckless disregard for life?

"Ill continue but I need to know which fire you are referring to. There were 5 fires they were charged with but found guilty of only 2. "

The fires in the 2006 case, not the ones that were dropped that both the government and the defendants agreed to drop.

"That being said I need to know where you got this data given that from the Hammonds own appeal to the US Supreme court the were acquitted from paying damages at the end of the trail."

I don't think I made that statement that they were acquitted from paying damages. I'm simply agreeing with the 2006 judge, and not the appeals court based on the case in 2006.

23493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


bobsagget wrote:

Bump. Aren't they trying the one rancher on Double jeopardy or something which is illegal? The Feds are totally in the wrong.


Wrong it was a case of appealing to a higher court not double jeopardy. Pay attention fam.


By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.” The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.” In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.



http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison


How much does the Federal Government pay you to post on Cr?
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

"Malice as a legal term does not mean to imply intent to harm it can also imply reckless disregard for life"

Ok, so starting a fire in the middle of a dessert that increased the value of the land, that was put out not by state firefighters but by the family themselves, would be considered reckless disregard for life?

"Ill continue but I need to know which fire you are referring to. There were 5 fires they were charged with but found guilty of only 2. "

The fires in the 2006 case, not the ones that were dropped that both the government and the defendants agreed to drop.

"That being said I need to know where you got this data given that from the Hammonds own appeal to the US Supreme court the were acquitted from paying damages at the end of the trail."

I don't think I made that statement that they were acquitted from paying damages. I'm simply agreeing with the 2006 judge, and not the appeals court based on the case in 2006.





Ok, so starting a fire in the middle of a dessert that increased the value of the land, that was put out not by state firefighters but by the family themselves, would be considered reckless disregard for life?


Yes because they did not contact the firefighters or BLM beforehand endangering firefighters lives.



The fires in the 2006 case, not the ones that were dropped that both the government and the defendants agreed to drop.


Okay it was one case trying for multiple accounts of arson there was no separate cases for the record. Secondly all the 2006 fires were dropped except for the Krumbo Butte fire.


I don't think I made that statement that they were acquitted from paying damages. I'm simply agreeing with the 2006 judge, and not the appeals court based on the case in 2006.


Yes but the damages they were charged with for the 2006 fire were $1000 not a $100 dollars. Im pointing out that your source may be giving disinfo. EDIT: Im aware I phrased the original quote badly and was essentially asking for two different things I apologize. Mae Culpa.
23493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16


9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16


Hey dude before you criticize me you may wanna read up the case given that you thought double jeopardy happened.
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

"Malice as a legal term does not mean to imply intent to harm it can also imply reckless disregard for life"

Ok, so starting a fire in the middle of a dessert that increased the value of the land, that was put out not by state firefighters but by the family themselves, would be considered reckless disregard for life?

"Ill continue but I need to know which fire you are referring to. There were 5 fires they were charged with but found guilty of only 2. "

The fires in the 2006 case, not the ones that were dropped that both the government and the defendants agreed to drop.

"That being said I need to know where you got this data given that from the Hammonds own appeal to the US Supreme court the were acquitted from paying damages at the end of the trail."

I don't think I made that statement that they were acquitted from paying damages. I'm simply agreeing with the 2006 judge, and not the appeals court based on the case in 2006.





Ok, so starting a fire in the middle of a dessert that increased the value of the land, that was put out not by state firefighters but by the family themselves, would be considered reckless disregard for life?


Yes because they did not contact the firefighters or BLM beforehand endangering firefighters lives.



The fires in the 2006 case, not the ones that were dropped that both the government and the defendants agreed to drop.


Okay it was one case trying for multiple accounts of arson there was no separate cases for the record. Secondly all the 2006 fires were dropped except for the Krumbo Butte fire.


I don't think I made that statement that they were acquitted from paying damages. I'm simply agreeing with the 2006 judge, and not the appeals court based on the case in 2006.


Yes but the damages they were charged with for the 2006 fire were $1000 not a $100 dollars. Im pointing out that your source may be giving disinfo. EDIT: Im aware I phrased the original quote badly and was essentially asking for two different things I apologize. Mae Culpa.


"Yes because they did not contact the firefighters or BLM beforehand endangering firefighters lives. "

I thought they did in the court case. They contacted the BLM and the firefighters were miles and hours away if I wasn't mistaken.


"Yes but the damages they were charged with for the 2006 fire were $1000 not a $100 dollars. Im pointing out that your source may be giving disinfo." Hmm, it may be that they were CHARGED over 1000 dollars, but I think the total cost estimated by the judge was 100 dollars.

Do you have the original case in 2006? I don't.

9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


I thought they did in the court case. They contacted the BLM and the firefighters were miles and hours away if I wasn't mistaken.



Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

You may be mistaking this with the 2001 fire were BLM were notified two hours after the fact.



Do you have the original case in 2006? I don't.


Trail was in 2012. I cant find the documents but
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf
Are good rundowns.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16
I don't know why megahobbit posts here, he hates this forum and website.
Posted 1/5/16

megahobbit wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:


I thought they did in the court case. They contacted the BLM and the firefighters were miles and hours away if I wasn't mistaken.



Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons


http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison

You may be mistaking this with the 2001 fire were BLM were notified two hours after the fact.



Do you have the original case in 2006? I don't.


Trail was in 2012. I cant find the documents but
http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/eastern-oregon-ranchers-convicted-arson-resentenced-five-years-prison
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hammond-v-United-States-13-1512-Reply-to-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf
Are good rundowns.


So which case is the federal government suing them over?
6646 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 1/5/16 , edited 1/6/16
From what I have read about the case, the Hammonds did set fires either on or that spread to government land. Authorities were not informed of these burns until at least 2 hours after they were set and one endangered a group of trainee firefighters. Sounds like arson to me, even if accidental. And they were convicted by a jury of their peers and while the initial judge gave the Hammonds shorter than the mandatory sentences, a higher appeals court issues the proper sentences as proscribed by law.

In this instance you should be working to change the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Doing this does not involve taking over government buildings.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.